Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints/Archive 2

My edit
diff Changes:"Members of the LDS Church may accurately be referred to as Latter-day Saints or as Mormons, though the former is more specific and less ambiguous."--to:"Members of the LDS Church may accurately be referred to as Latter-day Saints or as Mormons. Although the former is arguably more specific and less ambiguous, following the predominant form found in the sources to a particular Wikipedia article is not incorrect."Unless the manual wants to shade toward a prescription that all instances referencing the CoJCoLdS in the encyclopedia change from Mormon to Latter-day Saint, I believe this wording to be a balanced description of applicable Wikipedia principles and practice.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the wording but preserved the added meaning. ...comments? ~B F izz 16:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the change above. - Storm  Rider  05:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent! .!. Work well done. I had intended to mention the style guide (for the press) in LDS.org but I see you have reflected on that already. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with three changes and I don't see how any of the problems that have been address by myself or Good Ol’factory have been addressee, so I don't see how there is a concusses on changing things. You picking and choosing what sources you want to use for your own reason so you can change article you want to "Mormon" and ignore the real issues. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Acceptable short form" section. You made the edits then you ignore them.  You say 'avoid the informal appellation Mormon church outside of directly quoted material' yet list "Mormon" as the first "Acceptable short form". Which is it, avoid or is it OK?  It isn't even alphabetical.  LDS Church should be at minimum First.  I think Mormon Church should not be listed at all, if it should be “avoided”.
 * There are plenty of sources that us "Mormon" to refer to other sects in the Latter-day Saint movement that are not decedent from the Utah sects. How can you unilaterally impose that restriction?
 * Your more then happy to impose the "The LDS Church doesn’t dictate what should and should be on Wikipids the fact they don't want to use "Mormon" should be ignored" idea, but your more then willing to include "Several denominations, including the Community of Christ, generally oppose the use of the word Mormon or its derivatives in reference to its members or theology" and allow that to be acceptable. If Mormon is ok to use for the Utah LDS Church then it should be ok for ALL Latter-day sects.  Making is extremely ambiguous.  The very reason it isn't acceptable at all.
 * ARTEST4ECHO, three things. (i.) A recent article in the Deseret News quotes the individual who helms the church's public affairs to the effect that the church now encourages Mormon at least once in articles, along with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to enable people to find these articles through search engines...because people both in- and outside the church tend to use Mormon in their searches:"Michael Otterson ... the church's Public Affairs managing director ...: 'From the church's point of view, we much prefer to use the proper name of the church,' said Otterson, adding, 'but you've got to balance that against the reality that you can't fit nine words (the church's full name) into a headline, so the media will always tend to use the shortened version. The fact that we use the Savior's name is very significant, and we try not to lose that in our conversations and keep it right there.' Still, 'Mormon' is a name — for better or for bitter — that has trailed the church since its earliest days, given its belief in and use of The Book of Mormon as holy scripture, which itself carries the name of an ancient prophet who abridged the historical accounts. It's also a name the LDS Church has tried to downplay previously, but in recent years has re-embraced with increased use, thanks in part to high-tech advances.---April 2, 2011 Deseret News" (ii.) I don't mind mention of the Mormon church's preferences in the MOS, as laid out in the church's style guide. It would just require, IMO, a short statement as to why Wikipedia's own style manual ignores the church's stated preference as far as the term LDS Church is concerned, that's all. (The church's guide neglects to reference the expression LDS except to say it prefers it not be used in the term LDS Church .) (iii.) The church's style guide never said to avoid use of Mormon for individual members or as an adjective within various contexts; it simply said it prefers that the compound Mormon church not be used for the organization of the church, itself:"- Please avoid the use of 'Mormon Church'.... - When referring to Church members... 'Mormons' is acceptable. - 'Mormon' is correctly used in proper names such as the...Mormon Trail, or when used as an adjective in such expressions as 'Mormon pioneers.' - 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.---LDS Newsroom, 'Style Guide: The Name of the Church'"--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the table is fine, with the following caveats (which I have implemented): (1) the table should set out short forms of the churches and for adherents of the church. There is probably a difference in some cases. For instance, using "Mormon" as an adherent of the LDS Church is probably more appropriate than using "Mormon Church" as the short form of this church. For this reason, the table should be a self-standing section of the MOS and not limited to just the adherents section. (2) I agree that the options for naming adherents (when there are multiple choices) should be either places in order of preference, or if that can't be agreed to, just be alphabetized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirect
Not sure how I feel about WP:LDS being redirected here instead of the wikiproject. ...comments? ~B F izz 18:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the wp:LDS being redirected here, per ease use by Wiki contributors in general as opposed to the self-selected group of the LDS WikiProject.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with WP:MOSLDS? Or perhaps WP:LDSSTYLE? People looking at the wikiproject aren't always just its members (though admittedly that particular wikiproject seems rather dormant). Usually when I see the WP: prefix, followed by some categorical thing—like WP:HISTORY, WP:HINDU, or WP:SCIENCE—I generally expect a wikiproject, not a Manual of Style subpage. I'm not definitively opposing the redirect change, but I don't really support it either. ...comments? ~B F izz 00:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I turned wp:ldsstyle blue.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this unilateral change to the redirect as not having consensus and have updated the pages accordingly. -- Trödel 22:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with having WP:LDS redirect to the WikiProject. That seems to make more sense. I have little time for belonging to any WikiProject, but generally the MOS in an area is linked to prominently on the WikiProject page, so it makes sense to link to the more general page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding some teeth
First, I would like to note that the article that first caused the resent changes (Glenn Beck) would not be effected by what I am asking for. The current way it is written would not be a violation of the wording changes I am suggesting, since it is referencing to Beck being an "Adherent", so (Mormon) is appropriate.

I realize the changes made over the last week were discuss in great deal, which is why I am putting here on the discussion page. I am requesting a change to the vagueness of:
 * In reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, avoid the informal appellation Mormon church outside of directly quoted material – following a convention of Utah newspapers, the abbreviation LDS Church is preferred..."
 * The word "Suggested" in the "Suggested abbreviations and short forms"

I do understand the need for some leeway, but I would like to add a little more "Teeth" into the statement, so to speak. It only took two days before I ran into "Well it only says "Avoid" and "Preferred" and since I think the "The Mormon Church" is better, I'm choosing to ignore the MOS and am going to use "The Mormon Chruch"" and "the MOS doesn't say The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (The Mormon Church) should not be used only it only "suggests" it not be used".

I would like to suggest something along the lines of (but this is only a very first draft and something different would be fine) of changing the statement to:


 * In reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, the informal appellation Mormon church should not be used outside of directly quoted material, unless a clear consensus for its use is reached, – following a convention of Utah newspapers, the abbreviation LDS Church should be used."

As to "Suggested", I'm not sure what would be better other then a stronger word of the same meaning or even removal, but I'm honestly not sure what would be best. Again I understand some leeway is needed, but I think something needs to change. Some wording allowing leway is fine, but I honestly don't see that "Suggested" is needed since the list includes the use of "Mormon" as adherents of the LDS Church, which was the cause of the change in the first place. However, again, this is just the first "idea" and something else isn't objectionable.

I my opinion, it seems like the current changes swung things just a little to far from where to what you were looking for and past the desired results, but again, that is only my opinion.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it needs more teeth. LDS Church should be the default. (on a side note a striper is a fish - I'd suggest changing the comments to pale stripe and stripe if they stay in). -- Trödel 02:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I omitted the "unless a clear consensus for its use is reached" because the infobox at the top of the page already says, "Use common sense in applying [these guidelines]; [they] will have occasional exceptions." ...comments? ~B F izz 06:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I only suggested that part in order to keep some of the "Leeway" that I thought was being attempted by the last changes. Taking it out or leaving it in is all the same to me. Again, I was also not trying to imply that that was the ONLY way that I thought would help.
 * Also nothing has been said about "Suggested". I admit, I'm not actually sure about what, if anything should or could be done, but that has been a "Sticking" point that has been used to justify The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) in less then two day.  I was thinking simply a slightly stronger word for "Suggested" could restore LDS Church as the "Default".  Perhaps even "Default abbreviations and short forms", "Abbreviation for church" and "Short name for adherent", since "Default" is stronger the "Suggested", but it allows for thing that don't fall into the "Default" category, again leaving some leeway.  I think that will make it clearer, but again, this is only one idea.
 * Lastly, I would like to know what user:Storm Rider, User:Good Olfactory, and User:Hodgson-Burnett& think, if only to get a clear consensus.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 07:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. So despite the sections above showing both that "Mormon" is just as misleading as "LDS" and showing a clear lack of consensus, a consensus on forcing one usage over the other was declared in ten hours? tedder (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not true. The original statement "avoid the informal appellation Mormon church outside of directly quoted material" was written by one side of the above discussion (and not my side), and now the word “Avoid” was removed.  The past statement is in line with what it reads now and the intent of those who wrote it.  It was only clarified and straightened, as you suggested.  I will admit that I haven’t had them expressly state that is exactly as they would like to word things, but the page has been changed (by them) since then, without a revert of that statement, so there is a consensus.  --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There has long been consensus on this issue - as shown by the last 5-6 years where the basic standards have been used without serious objection. The latest efforts, in my mind, are efforts to clarify the convention already in use and provide some guidance for usages "near the fringe." -- Trödel 14:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the consensus on this issue has been fairly stable over the months. Perhaps it would be helpful to find out at this stage: are there any users who disagree that "LDS Church" should be the default abbreviation on Wikipedia? In other words, at this stage is anyone suggesting that in the MOS we should state that "Mormon Church" should be preferred over "LDS Church"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Allow, with limits - Wikipedia should not disallow "Mormon Church" outright, per the existing RSes. Rather, add the caveat that, when its use is justified, it should be accompanied by "colloquial name," or whatnot.  I mean yo iffa survey were taken of my US East Coast middle-class neighbors, even after the less-informed of them were thrown out by a preliminary question that they'd have to answer correctly in order to be included in the response pool--such as, say, having to be able to identify Hassids as Orthodox Jewry--I wouldn't be at all surprised if the vast majority of respondents still wouldn't know that LDS refers to "Mormons." As an April 2, 2011 news piece in the Deseret News says: Despite Elder Oaks having said a decade ago to the New York Times, "I don't mind being called a Mormon but I don't want it said that I belong to the Mormon Church,"  ...nowadays:"In order to enhance SEO [search engine optimization], Deseret News editors and Deseret Digital Media managers will purposefully put 'Mormon' — and even 'Mormon Church' in bodies of text and headlines. 'Usage of the term 'Mormon' has two benefits,' [Deseret Digital Media's LDS products manager Robert] Johnson said. 'One, greater traffic coming to the article due to a higher search rate for the term 'Mormon'; two, offering greater visibility of accurate information in regards to the LDS Church.'  Postings on the church's newsroom.lds.org site follow the same treatment — with the word 'Mormon' often, but not always, inserted deliberately into headlines and article texts.  'It's all about the search engine,' said Scott Trotter of LDS Public Affairs. 'If we want people to see it, it has to be searched under those terms. But it's a constant battle of putting the full name out there and helping them get it in the right context.' ... For example, on the home page of the church's own mormon.org web site — used to introduce those unfamiliar with the LDS Church to its principles, practices and people — 'Mormon church' can be found three times and the word 'Mormon' at least a dozen times total, while the full, formal name is used only twice. ... [Per LDS Public Affairs managing director Michael Otterson] '...having people associate the word 'Mormon' with 'Latter-day Saints' and with Jesus Christ makes sense rather than avoid it. You'll never avoid it. So at least let's have people associate the two together.'"--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the remaining issue is whether it should ever be permitted. I was trying to find out if anyone thought that "LDS Church" should not be the default abbreviation that the MOS recommends, or if anyone thought that "Mormon Church" should be the default abbreviation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, my own opinion (FWIW)...is that although I don't necessarily love the insiders and Utah newspaper short term LDS Church, I suppose it's probably almost as--or maybe at least as--good a default as the more common but mor informal nickname Mormon church would be, I guess.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a recent DesNews headline: "Mormon PR leader: 'Why I won't be seeing the Book of Mormon musical.'"--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although Mormon is used in the headline, this article consistently uses LDS Church. Which supports in my mind the preference to LDS Church as an abbreviation and Mormon as more of a colloquialism as opposed to a scholarly writing. -- Trödel 21:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * With concern some fairly closely related issues, we have already pinged the LDSWikPiproject talkpage and engaged in so-called appropriate canvassing. Let's try an RfC!--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that the Mormon PR leader  article doesn’t violate the MOS as is.  The title is referring to the person, a "Mormon" person, which is entirely within the correct usage.  The article continues on and correctly refers to the LDS Church as LDS Church and never used "Mormon Church".
 * At this point in the discussion no one is saying that you cannot call a person "Mormon", or that “Mormon Church” should never be used. If you note The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still say “and colloquially referred to as the Mormon Church” and even I think to remove that would be bad.  It comes down to what the default term should be “LDS Church” or "Mormon Church" when it comes to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a church.
 * Yes, I will admit that Mormon.org is run by the church itself, and it dose say "commonly called the Mormon Church", but Mormon.org is about "Mormon People" and there personal beliefs. Mormon.org never uses "Mormon Church" other then to explain that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the official name of the religion....", when they are saying that "Mormon Church" is a nickname.  Also, yes, some newspapers, including Deseret news, still do on occcation use "Mormon Church".  However, in my opinion (and yes it’s an opinion), the "LDS Church" and "Mormon Person" usage seems to be the default with any newspaper which dose real reseach.  If you read most new articles about the LDS Church, you can see that this is the normal default, no, not always, but much more often then not.
 * The LDS Public Affairs has said "LDS Church" is correct, the convention of Utah newspapers says the abbreviation LDS Church should be used. Glenn Beck correctly uses the term to refer to him being a "Mormon" and The Family: A Proclamation to the World now correctly uses "whose adherents are known as Mormons", instead of what was on both pages (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church)).
 * Lastly, the MOS has never said "Mormon Church" should never be used or was it ever the default way to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I would think that a "Nickname" shouldn't trump a "Official" abbreviation.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lastly, the MOS has never said "Mormon Church" should never be used or was it ever the default way to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I would think that a "Nickname" shouldn't trump a "Official" abbreviation.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC
Is the abbreviation LDS Church an example of insider jargon or a regionalism necessitating further explanation--that is, of its referring to Mormons--in text (and not just by clicking on its Wikilink)? Background: For the meaning "adherent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (and often as an adjective meaning "of or related to this church," as well), Wiki's style manual suggests that either term Mormon or Latter-day Saint are acceptable and to follow whichever form is predominant in the sources for a particular Wiki article. But, whereas many of its adherents self-identify using the colloquial term Mormon due to its being more commonly understood, Latter-day Saint is how they express their self-conception in religious terms. Which brings us to the question of what to use as a short name for the church. The style guide currently recommends--mostlly, I think, for consistency:"Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)"--instead of,"Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (often called the 'Mormon church')"Yet, of course, this recommendation is despite what may be the case within the sources to a particular article. As for the church's own practice: According to its head of public relations, the church often encourages use of Mormon church in news articles; also, on the church's mormon.org website, its "About" page uses full name of the church twice to "Mormon church" three times--with LDS Church being used zero times. Furthermore, the AP Stylebook advocates use of Mormon&thinsp;/&thinsp;Mormon church on second reference; but, be that as it may, LDS Church is ubiquitous for its use on second reference in print news media within the heartland of the so-called Mormon corridor. Any input or suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral - At a loss which should be the standard default--or if there should be a preference in the first place, in the MOS, either way.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Waste of time - There is no controversy here - even the RFC proposer claims to be neutral. The status quo is sufficient. -- Trödel 17:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree no need for RfC.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Appropriateness of term 'Latter Day Saint Movement'
In the "Joseph Smith Jr." and "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" articles the term is used similar to "Joseph Smith was the founder of the Latter Day Saint Movement". This is concerning for a number of reasons. First, Joseph Smith never founded a movement, though it could be expressed that a movement followed his teachings. In reality he restored (apologetic), formed (polemic), or organized (neutral) a church (The Church of Christ) which went through a few name changes.

The past argument has been promoted by some that we can not refer to the early church by name for two main reasons, first there is another church now by that name, and second, there are congregations which identify themselves by a different name.

The improved means for addressing the organization is, in my opinion, to identify it by its original name (which is heavily and reliably sourced) and then add the following qualifier as follows;

"In 1830, Joseph Smith organized The Church of Christ (renamed The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1838)...".

Before the point is raised that other faiths take issue that the 1838 name is insensitive to some congregations, it is important to differentiate between the names ("The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" - 1838) and ("The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - hyphen added and lower case 'd' in the word 'day' - present day). The first name is preferred as neutral because it is both the most recent name likely shared by the most churches (I am aware of no splinter groups between 1830 and 1836). In fact most present religions identifying Joseph Smith as influential would likely be more offended to hear the 'movement' claim than the point that he organized "The Church of Christ" and then went through name changes. Before anyone argues this is an LDS apologist position, I would point out this is also a possibly uncomfortable position as it expressed the fact that Joseph Smith's original naming might not have been prophetically sound.

I have noticed a polemic effort to avoid using the terms 'Jesus' or 'Christ' as many evangelical Christians do not share this position, but this is not a balanced justification. In such cases the evidences of reliable, prominent researchers, should trump sensitivity.

Input? -- Canad iandy  talk  04:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources, particularly academic works in this area, refer to Smith as the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. For starters, the movement began to form in 1829 and the organization of the Church of Christ was more of a transition point than the actual start of Smith's leadership. When the Church of Christ was organized Smith already had nearly 100 followers. Secondly, since so many and such a variety of churches now regard Smith as their founder, it makes sense to refer to the collection of churches as a movement and Smith as the movement's founder. I don't think this terminology is related to any attempt to allege that Latter Day Saints are not Christians. "Church of Jesus Christ"/"Church of Christ" is such a common phrase to use in names that almost invariably churches that use these phrases are referred to by some other more distinctive name. Smith himself recognized the naming problem, which is why in 1834 he decided to rename the Church of Christ to the "Church of the Latter Day Saints". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Olfactory, you sure know your Joseph Smith history! Still, to your first point, it would be POV to suggest these individuals followed Joseph Smith and not his teachings. To your second point, I think we may be working too hard to shape this umbrella. These faiths seem to move farther away from each other every year. This is not an amalgamation of closely similar faiths (i.e. Baptist Conventions). In fact, membership in most (or all) of these other groups could result in excommunication from the larger Church. This is not aimed as an insensitivity or 'polemicism' against these faiths, but the only thing which they all seem to share in common is a respect for Joseph Smith as an inspired individual. And not all refer to themselves as "Latter Day Saints" so that term is exclusionary. So in essence he did not found a movement, if anything he undesignedly initiated an eventually fractured and varied number of churches, and philosophies. I'll defer to your opinion here, yet I think it is best said that "In 1830 Joseph Smith organized a church, then named "The Church of Christ", which drew its membership from a core of individuals who followed his teachings prior to that date."-- Canad iandy  talk  04:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

New Idea?
I don't know if this one has been given much debate, but I have a new (I think) suggestion. Instead of the bickering over abbreviating "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" to LDS Church (which is discouraged), we could shorten the name to one which is more reflective of the name and a little more sensitive. I propose the default short form be

"The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS)".

This shortens the name, differentiates the Church from other "Church[es] of Christ" and counters any polemic agendas to dismiss Mormons as not believing in Christ.-- Canad iandy  talk  16:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the short form proposed by the LDS Church's style guide, but it is never followed by any publications, not even by the church-owned Deseret News. It is not a good option because it is ambiguous and likely to be confused with The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), which is the third-largest Latter Day Saint church—its official name is "The Church of Jesus Christ". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input Olfactory. The reason we would benefit from the proposed terminology ('The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS)') is different from why news media might. Media may require both abbreviated terms (headline and space issues) and will also reflect a readership bias. WP should write from a neutral position based on its broad readership. As to the Bickertonite point, I don't see how anyone might confuse the two, especially if the first shortened usage of the article was qualified according to usual practice. In fact the common practice is far more confusing. It reminds me of the clean up after Hurricane Katrina when one news source apparently recognized two churches which were prominently involved, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Mormon church. There are many who are confused by these different labels. I wouldn't be surprised that many would think the Mormon Church, the LDS Church, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are three different religions. Wise usage here could help end the common confusion over the official name of the church.-- Canad iandy  talk  00:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think adding a fourth term into the mix, "The Church of Jesus Christ", is going to do anything to help resolve the situation. I suspect that "LDS Church" and "Mormon Church" are better known as being equivalent to TCOJCOLDS by far. One sign that your proposal may not be appropriate is that you seem to be suggesting that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" be abbreviated to "The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS)". If the shortened form of the longer name requires another parenthetical explanation/short form—in this case "(LDS)"—I don't think it's a very good short form. This would leave us with lead sentences like "In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS)), ..." Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the lead would be a little problematic, but I think the problems it solves would be worth it. Yes I had considered the "TCOJCOFLD" idea, but it will likely always be insensitive to acronymize the name of deity. As to a fourth name in the mix, my proposal is that we lose 2 (Mormon Church and LDS Church). These have always been both misleading (not Mormon's Church nor the Latter-day Saints'). So the style would look like;


 * Church long form "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"
 * Church medium forms: "The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS)" or "The Church of Jesus Christ"
 * Church short form, "the Church"


 * Individual members identifiers; "members", "Mormons", or "LDS".


 * This seems to make for less translation between forms, acronyms, (i.e. does LDS Church mean "Latter-day Saints' Church" or a church composed of Latter-day Saints?). Or does Mormon Church suggest it is the Church known colloquially as such, the Church which follows the prophet Mormon, or a Church composed of Mormons, or a church under the possession or ownership of Mormons? Everything is problematic, but I think the proposals I have made are a definite improvement.-- Canad iandy  talk  03:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that no reliable sources use "The Church of Jesus Christ" to refer to the church in question. We're not necessarily locked in to using the version that is most favored by reliable sources, but we should probably use one of the ones that is commonly used. I see little benefit to using "The Church of Jesus Christ" since (1) it is inherently ambiguous, (2) no reliable sources use it, not even Church-owned newspapers, (3) it would be less well understood than "LDS Church" or "Mormon Church". Removing the name "Jesus Christ" in writing an abbreviation is not a show of disrespect or an implication of non-Christianity; it's just a matter of abbreviating for convenience and clarity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Goodolfactory. Thanks again for not simply dismissing my suggestions. I do see your point about this not being a common treatment of the name of the church in the research, but then the standardization of style is sort of uncharted territory in this case. In fact if it had been addressed years ago we might not be having this discussion. I think it stems from the fact that there was a whole lot of colloquial labeling going on historically which in today's environment would not be treated as loosely. I also agree that it is a brave new idea that Wikipedia should be the place for a new model, but I will accept consensus here as to whether this model is an improvement, an improvement which then might help guide the style usage for other un-standardized researchers. As a great man once said, "It's better to lean into the stiff wind of opposition, than to hunker down and do nothing." Or as they say here at WP, "Be bold." Either way, you have been very courteous and insightful on the matter. Thanks. I await discussion for consensus. As follow-up to your point of removing 'Jesus Christ' for short form, I agree that it is possible, but that there are better forms, i.e. "the Church." Within the context of the article where the name of the Church has been given it is appropriate as it implies the body of the Church and not merely a short form of the name.-- Canad iandy  talk  04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style
Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation: "Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?" It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. N oetica Tea? 00:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
I think Mormon should preceed the full name of the church in tabular matter such as infoboxes pertaining to individuals who happen to be LDS.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why exactly? "Mormon" would be a less precise term, since all LDS Church members are Mormons, but not all Mormons are LDS Church members. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good Ol’factory, although the LDS Church asks that the full name be used "on first reference," I believe that Mormon--all of 6 letters--placed immediately prior to the tCoJCoLDS mouthful actually still satisfies the organization's request its lengthy monicker be used on first reference and gains by way of quicker reader comprehension while losing nothing by way of accuracy. And note that "Mormons - not - LDS" tend to use a qualifier before the descriptor Mormon, in any case.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really concerned with what the LDS Church has asked, and I don't think we need to cater to its wishes. I'm just wondering why it would be necessary to use a less precise term when these things are typically wikilikned anyway. I wouldn't expect an FLDS Church member to have "Mormon" as their religion either—it would just link to Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In the abstract it would make some sense to do it, in the same way we might put "Lutheran" instead of a specific Lutheran church, but because of the sensitivities and constant controversies within the Latter Day Saint movement about who gets to be called a "Mormon", I think it's best avoided altogether. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's yesterday's fight and, to mix metaphors, that ship's already sailed in that WP already puts Mormon directly after the [spelt-out] tCoJCoLDS in tables such as iofoboxes. It would simply be clearer and hence a service to our readers to use the well-known term prior to the full formal designation (ie, of course, akin to "Quaker (Religious Society of Friends&thinsp;/&thinsp;Friends Church)" instead of vice-versa..).--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's yesterday's fight at all. I haven't seen such a convention widely implemented, in any case. There are hundreds of articles where it has not been done. Where was the discussion where it was resolved to do so? Doing so could be problematic because of the wide disagreements within the movement over who is entitled to use the term and have it applied to themselves. Within just the LDS Church, some LDS Church members self-identify as Mormons, and others reject the label. I think it's fine to do when there are sources in which the person self-identifies as "Mormon", but especially for living people, it's generally not safe to by apply it by default to any member of the Latter Day Saint movement, whether within the LDS Church or outside of it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argumentation is a little bit like the problem of the word germany, if you would ask persons in the street in germany, with a fair question, that people will name them in english speaking countries as germans (Germanen) the people would say we are deutsch, not german. There is not a really a identification to the word German ... But German is the common word for Germany, but beside that it would be easier to name Germans as Deutsch, so it is also in such case above ... I suposse. Or other example e.g., names of town ... e.g. and so on. -- So I suppose it is more important that people will understand the information, so is this quarrel inside this community of identification not important and a yesterday fight, I think. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, kind of, I suppose. The example you give has the added complication of language translation. With the names of churches, as long as the terminology contains wikilinks, we thereby ensure that a way to understand the information is provided. But if the sole issue is whether "Mormon" goes first or second (and that seems to be what Hodgdon is suggesting, though I'm not sure that it's not more complicated than that in practice), I don't think it really matters either way which goes first. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mormon, I suppose would be better to understand, so it should be placed first. In each question are existings words, which will be used not in common way, some groups using a special language, which will be not understand in general, an e.g. would be Argot, (for special language compare the german Wikipedia-article (Sondersprache),because there exists not an english one.) So suchs things happens in any language, that there existings words in languages which will be not understand from the common people, and so on. The example above is a good example because, there existed in the past the word douche for German in the english language, you can see it on the coverdale bible ... - But it is right, the suggestion is to place into the infobox under the section "religion" first "mormon" and after it the "church body". The problem without it is that people will read without it first words of a not known organisation and will not read the rest (the word mormon) which will give a understandable information, so it would be better to place first mormon, because the aim should be that people will understand it and to use a special language, if it is not important. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My only concern is if there is a Latter Day Saint who doesn't self-identify as being "Mormon" and may even reject the label, we should not be defaulting to this phraseology in the infobox. Being a Mormon and being a member of a church within the Latter Day Saint movement are not always co-extensive. The order doesn't really matter, I don't think, as we have to assume that people will read what we put before them; otherwise we would not put it before them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the current arrangement – where the "religion" field of biography infoboxes says "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)" – is fine. It gives the actual church followed by a common name.  In fact the standard usage for the field used to be just "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" until June 2011, when User:90.204.112.118  went around and changed it to the current form.  I don't think there's ever been any standard usage that had "Mormon" first.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

W.Time.R is always well-spoken, wise, WP-proper; and I've learned a lot from his (or her) edits. From my point of view ("Yes, I'm a Mormon"), in most formal media writing and informal conversation, "Mormon" is a person and "LDS" is the largest church started in the 'later-days'. Next, I'll read this Article and see what you-all are talking about, (been busy with the Republican campaign article(s)). By the way, you may be interested in the current campaigns in cities, called "Yes, I'm a Mormon" campaign. When we visited our grandkids in Kansas and in Seattle, they were both involved in local billboard, radio, web activity, (not yet here in Los Angeles). Also, our Los Angeles Temple Visitors Center has video that is similar. And, of course, online via Internet. Check it out with LDS public relations—I am not qualified to speak for them. Keep up the good work! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What is esentially the same proposal didn't seem to go anywhere last year either; see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Title (Mormon) vs. Title (Latter Day Saints)
I was thinking that somewhere on the MOS we need to address Article titles.

Specifically, When Article need to be differentiated from other page, like John Taylor (Mormon).

The issue I have is not which one, as they both can apply, it's a matter of consistency. Some use "(Mormon)" like Joseph Freeman (Mormon), while some use "(Latter Day Saints)" like William Marks (Latter Day Saints). I think the MOS should address this.

I think that (Latter Day Saints) should be used, as not all "Latter Day Saints" are "Mormons". However, This isn't a sticking point for me. I just think we need some consistency.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is dealt with—at least partly—in the Latter Day Saint naming conventions. My understanding is that "(Mormon)" is the accepted disambiguator when the person was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Some examples are John Taylor (Mormon), John W. Taylor (Mormon), John Wells (Mormon)—all were members of the LDS Church. But when the person was a Latter Day Saint but was not a member of the post-succession crisis LDS Church, we use "(Latter Day Saints)" as a disambiguator. These non-LDS Church Latter Day Saints may have died prior to around the same time as Joseph Smith's death OR they may have carried on with a Latter Day Saint church that is not the LDS Church OR they may have left the church/movement entirely before 1844. Some examples are William Marks (Latter Day Saints) (post-1844 was affiliated with RLDS); Samuel H. Smith (Latter Day Saints) (died shortly after Joseph Smith in 1844), Sylvester Smith (Latter Day Saints) (left the movement in 1837). At this stage, the conventions are clear about the first type, but not about the second. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have updated the naming convention to reflect the current reality. I'm not trying to pre-empt any change to them, I just agree with ARTEST4ECHO that they were unclear up to this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is this separate from the draft of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion?
Editors have been complaining that style guidance is bloated and fragmented. I wonder why this one remains in its own little corner and cannot be integrated into an overall page. Tony  (talk)  13:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Revision to Articles

 * The following was incorrectly placed at Template talk:LDSTaskBox, when it should have been put here, so moved here. -- 71.223.123.164 (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The style guide stands in need of revision. As it is currently, it is very incorrect. Many other denominations that have broken off from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through the years are being bundled into "Mormonism" and the "Latter-day Saints." Currently the tern Latter-day Saints refers to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and "Mormonism" is a term that should describe a combinaton of doctrines, culture, and lifestyle, as it pertians to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. According to the Associated Press Styleguide, “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death.” Please refer to the official style guide for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/style-guide), and understand that the other denominations are not part of the Latter-day Saints, Mormonism, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibitor (talk • contribs) 19:23, 22 December 2007‎


 * WP uses "Latter Day Saints" to refer to any group that traces its origin to Joseph Smith, Jr. "Latter-day Saints" refers to members of the LDS Church. "Mormonism" and "Mormon" usually refers to the LDS Church, but some polygamist groups also have adopted the term. The AP Styleguide is not adhered to strictly on WP — WP editors agree to establish and change style guides by consensus. For the LDS style guide, see WP:LDSMOS, where this discussion is probably more appropriate for. Snocrates 02:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(Latter-Day Saints) vs (LDS Church) Parentheticals
There is a discussion on (Latter-Day Saints) vs (LDS Church) Parentheticals going on at Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) caused by an issue with President of the Church vs. President of the Church (LDS Church) (caused by Talk:President_of_the_Church). I would suggest that those people who work on this page alot, chime in.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Mormonism wording focuses too much on the LDS Church
Any chance someone could have a look and work on the wording? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of the word "The"
Again this issue has come up. User:Beyond My Ken has just reverted 30 insistence where pages have incorrectly used "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" when "THE" is per MOS:LDS and WP:THE, "The" is part of the legal name of this sect and should be capitalized. "Beyond My Ken" dosn't want to talk to me about it anymore, so I'm taking it up here. WP:THE reads, "When a proper name is almost always used with capitalized "The", especially if it is included by unofficial sources, the article "The" should be used in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia page as well. For instance, this is true for the names of some musical groups:"

Additionally, THE even used The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an example. "Besides the above-mentioned cases, "The" is sometimes used at the beginning of some other proper names:"

Clearly Beyond My Ken is wrong, but per another uses suggestions "a broader community input on the question" should be used. So here it is. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not ready yet to voice an opinion on the matter as I'd like first to understand the different arguments and perspectives. But Manual of Style/Capital letters may also inform the discussion. Let us keep in mind that matters of style rise to the level of guidelines, not policy, and thus should be treated with some flexibility. If a particular usage is awkward in context even if a manual of style supports it, alternative styles should be open for consideration. alanyst 15:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree I think it is pretty clear that the "The" should be included and capitalized. The Wikipedia guideline on this has been consistent for years, and I think it is a cut and dry case, given that the LDS Church itself always includes the article as part of the full formal name, and capitalizes it. CO GDEN  04:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. I thought that this was a fairly settled issue and non-controversial; perhaps not. But per the guidelines, both general (WP:THE) and specific (WP:LDSMOS), I think that "The" should usually be included and capitalized. There might be some situations where it is not included, but those would be rare--one I can think of is if we were referring to the LDS Church as being based in Utah, it might make more sense to write "the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" than "the Utah-based The Church of ...". But I think that's an example of the exception and is not the general rule here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nah, not that important. I see no real reason to capitalize "the" in every instance.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose You folks need to read WP:walled garden. BMK (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you're trying to say here, but I don't think WP:Walled garden says what you think it says. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. It's been some time since I read it, and I recalled it as being more generalized and therefore applicable here. I think you understand the point I was trying to make, that MOS LDS is essentially controlled by advocates of that organization, and therefore the "consensus" that prevails here is not a true reflection of the broader community's feelings.  I don't know if there's another WP page that expresses that. BMK (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with BMK. It opens with: "This Wikipedia Manual of Style supplement has been created through the efforts and broad consensus of contributors to WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement." Then it says to follow "these conventions" so that articles are "neutral". Riiiiight. This is inappropriate as a "supplement" to MOS, and should be transferred to a supplement of the WikiProject Latter day what. Tony   (talk)  03:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose—We see this ebullient insistence on a weirdly capped "T" in the middle of sentences by a few institutions out of vanity. But vanity capitalisation is disapproved of by our own house style, Chicago MOS, and the Oxford style guide New Hart's Rules. I don't know why this institution was ever allowed to have its own little corner of MOS, but it seems wrong to me. Next thing we'll have the Catholic Church wanting a MOS to itself. Tony   (talk)  12:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a MOS for an "institution", it's a MOS for a religious movement, which is composed of a number of institutions, some of which have historically been, and some of which remain, fairly militantly opposed to each other, in part because all of them claim to be the successor institution to the original "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"—the one without the capitalized "The". One reason for the MOS for the movement was to prevent the disputes from arising time and time again in every movement-related article. It was crafted with some compromises on all sides, and it seems to have worked fairly well without having to resort to WP arbitration and the like, which have been necessary in other controversial topic areas. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree In this instance, use of "The" is as noted in guidelines cited by others, it is part of the church's official name. Natural and appropriate to include and capitalize "The" when identifying the church's full name.  Also helpful to remember that the MOS was developed in part of help ensure that WP guidelines were established and adhered to, guiding users to maintain npov when editing.  It's got nothing to do with vanity or feeling some corner of the WP world with special significance was to be carved out. ChristensenMJ (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment My impression has been that part of the reason for using a capital The in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to help distinguish it from similarly named churches. For instance, see:
 * Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (redirects to Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints))
 * Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)
 * Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Gladdenite) (redirect to Gladden Bishop, currently known as The Church of Jesus Christ of the New Jerusalem)
 * True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
 * True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days
 * Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Kingdom of God
 * Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Gibsonite) (redirect to Walter M. Gibson)
 * Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
 * Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
 * That said, these churches are all either very small or defunct, and I can see an argument for dropping the capital T on a case by case basis if it is excessively awkward grammatically. In other words, I think that the recommendation in MOS:LDS should stay, but it should be recognized that MOS:LDS is just one criteria to be weighed when we're actually writing sentences. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose vanity caps. This is suggestive...  Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Brief Comment What every WP editor participating here needs to remember is that the LDS church gets to chose its own name. Read their style guide publish via LDS.org to see that "The" is part of their name and has been since the time Joseph Smith registered its name per governing law. Hope this helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it doesn't get to make pronouncements on the grammar of the language. Tony   (talk)  08:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the LDS Church does have the right to choose its own name and has had it for well over 170 years. More importantly, it is correct grammar because The is acknowledged as part of the title and not a demonstrative adjective. Corporate entities, groups, organizations, retail outlets, and even churches do this all the time. -- Storm  Rider  16:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "The" is never an adjective. And they can insist on their vanity capping all they like, but as Dicklyon's linked analysis shows, a clear majority of usage (both AmEng and BrEng, if you choose each tab) is downcased. Just as people typically ignore high-handed insistence by a few universities for a The ("I attended The University of Pomposity"), this should be ignored if we're to take into consideration majority usage. Tony   (talk)  17:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "The" is never an adjective. Really? Then why does my Oxford dictionary say: "the adj. (called the definite article) 1 applied to a noun standing for a specific person or thing ..."? Of course the word "the" can be an adjective—that's how the word is usually used, as an attributive adjective that appears before a noun. The fact that it's given more specific names as well, like "article" or "definite article" doesn't change the fact that it acts adjectively and thus can correctly be referred to as an adjective. (It can also be an adverb, but that is less common.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. This seems to get settled repeatedly until the next well-meaning individual again discovers a "The" without any knowledge of the topic and off we go again. When we go to the iTunes page we do not read Itunes; we read iTunes, why? For the same reason that when you go to the LDS church's manual of style and read the information. I suppose this would be easier if we were talking about a non-controversial topic, but all kinds of agendas seem to consistently, repeatedly come up. This is more about knowledge or the reverse, ignorance, than about a real disagreement. I tend to think with 30 minutes of reading the decision is obvious. -- Storm  Rider  06:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't get why this is so hard. With "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" the "The" is part of a proper noun.  You always capitalize a proper name.  It seems like most those that oppose this are people here just don't like how it looks or don't understand the issue.  So what, it is the proper English way to write out the name of this sect.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. To me, it seems kind of weird to have this debate in the abstract. As long as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints exists at that article name, doesn't it make sense to use wikilinks that go to that article? If users want to propose changing the article name to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then we could have a move discussion. I would welcome such a discussion. But what doesn't make sense to me is to change all the links to avoid the "The" when the article still uses the "The". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that is a very good point. I don't know of any other articles on churches that begin with "the", even though one says "the Roman Catholic Church", etc. Tony   (talk)  04:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are others, currently. The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) is one. The ones that do tend to be about about churches that have explicitly adopted the "The" as part of their name due to the church attaching significance to the word's inclusion. Another is The First Church of Christ, Scientist, though that's more about a church building than an entire denomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree The "The" is part of the official name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and thus it should be included. Not doing so would be incorrect and, in my eyes, rude. Rorix the White (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Both ways perfectly grammatical, per sources. The uncapitalized "the" reads better, to me. But so does avoiding the diaeresis (see this piece in the New Yorker). Yet note that the AP's style book (recently) read"Mormon church Acceptable in references to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but the official name is preferred in first reference in a story dealing primarily with church activities."So such hyper-correctness(?) in capitalization is also presumably grammatical. Compare w this style guideline @ EditinganfIndexing.com:"Companies and institutions Lowercase “the” in running text, even if it’s part of the official name. This will prevent you from needing to look up hundreds of company names. (16: 8.67; 17: 8.68) They went to the Cheesecake Factory. (even though “The” is part of the official name.)  She attended the University of Texas at Austin. She studied business at the university. (even though they capitalize “The” in official company literature)  They traveled with the Hudson’s Bay Company.  Note: When writing official company literature, adhere to the company style guide, in which a capitalized “The” may be preferred."--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

changes based on recent style request from LDS Church?
Recently the LDS Church (or should I say the Church of Jesus Christ?) released a style guide requesting that "LDS Church" and the terms "Mormon" and "Mormonism" not be used, but rather "the Church of Jesus Christ" or "the Church" when referring to the Church in shortened form. This would only apply to references to specifically, the LDS Church. I think using "Mormon" as an umbrella term for all sects of Mormonism is still necessary and convenient. The release also requests that "When referring to Church members, the terms "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "Latter-day Saints" are preferred. We ask that the term "Mormons" not be used." I'm not really sure what to do about that one. I recognize that we are not obligated to change our style based on the LDS Church's request--but if there is consensus to change it, I am willing to change. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I thought I understood the situation, but now I'm confused. Changes to Isaiah resulted in a section heading to "In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". But that's confusing as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one specific denomination, albeit clearly the major one, right? Then I find that Mormon doctrine redirects to Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not Mormonism/the Latter-Day Saint movement in general. It's specifically about that denomination and gives the reader no suggestion that it isn't the only denomination., can you advise? This seems wrong, possibly an NPOV violation. And I'm not sure that my fix to Isaiah is sufficient. Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 11:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A couple of definitions, to the best of my understanding:
 * The religion is called Mormonism (used like Catholicism or Judaism).
 * The people are called either Mormons or Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (analogy: Catholics or Members of the Roman Catholic Church).
 * Latter Day Saint Movement is the (mostly academic) term that includes all of the churches resulting from Joseph Smith.
 * The "Mormon church" is called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on first use, and can be abbreviated after that (usually LDS Church).
 * The biggest surviving branch in the Latter Day Saint Movement is now known as The Community of Christ. They are not called Mormons and do not fall under the umbrella of "Mormonism" (by their own preference). Generally speaking, Mormonism is the branch that followed Brigham Young to Utah and adopted polygamy. The CoC (formerly the "Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints") kind of coalesced from the factions that didn't follow Young and who rejected polygamy.
 * The other notable branch, with numerous tiny sects, is Mormon Fundamentalism who mostly split with the LDS Church when it ended polygamy. While they do fall under the umbrella of Mormonism, they should not be referred to as Mormons or Mormonism without qualification.
 * Other minor branches (eg. Bickertonite, and Strangite) are called by their names, but aren't notable enough to be considered in high level articles like Isaiah. (They are however discussed in Mormonism-themed articles like Black people and Mormonism.
 * Just to give you an idea of the magnitude of the size differences, and why we can say "Mormon" to unambiguously refer to the LDS Church, here are some rough estimates of membership numbers in some of the branches:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * LDS Church || 16,118,000
 * Community of Christ || 250,000
 * Mormon Fundamentalism || 40,000
 * Bickertonites || 22,500
 * Strangites || 300
 * }
 * Does that help? ~Awilley (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Quick corrections, it's just "Community of Christ" (not "The Community of Christ") and it was previously known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or RLDS (not "Reformed"). It is still a name they legally own. As for "branch", the LDS Church is the largest "branch" of the Latter Day Saint movement since that encompasses all the churches that trace origins to Joseph Smith. None of the other groups like Community of Christ consider themselves a branch of the LDS Church. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Now this is an interesting development. They haven't done that in at least a century. However note the paragraph: "The Los Angeles Times is monitoring the rebranding, but its stylebook still allows for the use of the word “Mormon.” The Associated Press also reported its stylebook would remain unchanged and the term “Mormon” was still acceptable as a reference — though the news-gathering organization is also monitoring the rebranding effort." ~Awilley (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strangites || 300
 * }
 * Does that help? ~Awilley (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Quick corrections, it's just "Community of Christ" (not "The Community of Christ") and it was previously known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or RLDS (not "Reformed"). It is still a name they legally own. As for "branch", the LDS Church is the largest "branch" of the Latter Day Saint movement since that encompasses all the churches that trace origins to Joseph Smith. None of the other groups like Community of Christ consider themselves a branch of the LDS Church. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Now this is an interesting development. They haven't done that in at least a century. However note the paragraph: "The Los Angeles Times is monitoring the rebranding, but its stylebook still allows for the use of the word “Mormon.” The Associated Press also reported its stylebook would remain unchanged and the term “Mormon” was still acceptable as a reference — though the news-gathering organization is also monitoring the rebranding effort." ~Awilley (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Now this is an interesting development. They haven't done that in at least a century. However note the paragraph: "The Los Angeles Times is monitoring the rebranding, but its stylebook still allows for the use of the word “Mormon.” The Associated Press also reported its stylebook would remain unchanged and the term “Mormon” was still acceptable as a reference — though the news-gathering organization is also monitoring the rebranding effort." ~Awilley (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't think any changes should be made unless/until common usage changes outside of the LDS Church. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree with Good Ol’factory. Additionally, I think efforts to expedite wholesale changes to conform to the church's desires may not simply create pov challenges, but may also reduce the credibility of good faith editing and/or how LDS Church-related articles are viewed. ChristensenMJ (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. I think we can revisit the ide issue if/when a majority of news organizations change their styleguides. Wikipedia is meant to follow the sources, not lead them. ~Awilley (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Our Wikipedia style guide says to use "Mormon" for cultural aspects, so I think Mormon studies should keep that name, unless "Latter Day Saint Movement studies" is preferred. I mention this because Awilley mentioned that "Mormon" should only refer to members of the LDS Church. However, on the page I use it to refer to members of the then-RLDS church (and "non-Mormon" to refer to historians not affiliated with any Latter Day Saint movement). Should I change this use of "Mormon"? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * @Rachel Helps, I was mainly talking about modern usage, and it's perfectly fine to link the Community of Christ into a Mormon Studies page. I skimmed through that page and didn't see any problems there except an odd use of "Mormon church" in the phrase "...since the day the Mormon church was first organized...". I would rephrase that as something like "...since Joseph Smith organized the Church of Christ...". ~Awilley (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. WP:COMMONNAME is the guiding Wikipedia principle. Obviously, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints‎‎ gets the proper/legal name on its article, but that's as much for disambiguation from other churches within the movement as anything else. That said, it is reasonable and appropriate to use the term Mormon Church in the introduction because that's how they are commonly known—and it would be frankly confusing to the average reader to not use the term.There are a few articles, like Russell M. Nelson, where I would endorse a blanket change from LDS Church to Church of Jesus Christ. I would say the situation there parallels WP:ENGVAR: if we have a topic with a clear connection to the church (or as they would say, the Church), then why not use their preferred style? However, once we get into broader articles like Isaiah or NCAA basketball tournament selection process (which mentions BYU and, as a result, the church), where the older, non-preferred terms are clearer to readers, then it makes sense to leave them unchanged.Finally, I think Awilley hits it on the head: we should wait and see what other styles guides do with the change. If a majority of print sources change their usage, and if authorities like the AP change their guidance, then we should follow suit. (Aside #1: The missing item in the style guide press release is an acronym-type short form that disambiguates it from other churches. LDS did that; CJC, CoJC, or the like would sure help. Aside #2: Their webmasters haven't had a chance to act on the new guidance: the website publishing the Style Guide is mormonnewsroom.org, and the main site for the church is still mormon.org.) —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Reasons that acronyms such as "LDS", "Mormon", and others should be removed:


 * 1) The Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has asked that members of the church call the church by its true, full name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". I would encourage listening to this message from the President of the Church about why it is important for the church to use its full and true name: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/10/media/session_4_talk_11/5845645176001?lang=eng This has been discussed to some degree above, but this clip of what he said in conference really drives a nail into why it is really important to focus on the name of Jesus Christ in the church and not use acronyms.


 * 2) What gets posted on Wikipedia is viewed by large numbers of people, and as users of Wikipedia we need to be more careful about what we are presenting to the world and to think about how it affects other organizations and entities. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints doesn't want acronyms portrayed, especially acronyms like "Mormon" and also not to use "LDS", then shouldn't that be respected? Yes, the church does not have any ownership over Wikipedia. However, if someone were to post something that was considered humiliating or unwanted towards another person on Wikipedia, how would that be handled? I'm sure that would get taken down by Wikipedia immediately. Consider this: Are words like "Mormon" potentially unwanted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? That used to be used with a negative connotation towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And now the President of the Church has made it clear that he would rather not have acronyms such as "Mormon" or "LDS" used on internet sites.JasonPhelps (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comment is ironic – you insist that we use the full, correct name of the church, but you repeatedly misspell it. It's "... Latter-day Saints", not "... Latter-Day Saints". Also, "Mormon" is not an acronym. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – I'm opposed to any changes to articles based solely on the communiquė from the LDS church. If reliable sources start changing the way they refer to LDS topics then we can follow suit accordingly. And as stated above, it will be very difficult to implement any of this without a convenient acronym and without a term that is representative of the movement (i.e. Mormonism). I suspect this "style guide" is unlikely to have any real effect. Brad  v  04:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with the comments that we must ignore the recent style declarations from this group. It is imperative for editorial purposes that there be some short way to refer to this organization, and in most contexts both "The Church" and "The Church of Jesus Christ" are completely unreasonable terms to use.  If some other short form (such as CoJC) gains common use as a replacement for Mormon or LDS, even if it is only common among members of this group, I will reconsider. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The common name convention should be used here. I appreciate the importance of this re-branding campaign by The Church, but just as they must stick to their principles, so must we. JasonPhelps, thoughtfully presented his reasons and I think they should be addressed. 1. Is completely irrelevant. We aren't members of his Church, nor are we sympathetic to Mr. Nelson's pronouncements nor his meta-physical views. In reason 2. Jason asks "...shouldn't that be respected?". I think he asks an important question. This has been asked several times by other members of other religious sects. The answer this community has come to is a resounding "No". Muslims and Bahais don't like that we have pictures of their prophets. Scientologists don't like our articles on their doctrines. We don't run our project here based on the pronouncements of Muhammad, Bahá'u'lláh, or L. Ron Hubbard, and we aren't going to make an exception for the Saints' prophet either. --AdamF in MO (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This is the same issue that comes up when schools want to rebrand themselves, a case of WP:COMMONNAME. We dealt with this on several articles related to Northern Illinois Huskies as the school started a branding campaign to be the "NIU Huskies". In the end, secondary sources still referred to the school as "Northern Illinois", so the articles remained titled as such. The same would apply here. "LDS Church" and "Mormon" are still widely used and recognized short versions of the name. The fact that the church wishes to go a different direction with what is essentially a branding issue may eventually affect the names of articles here, but for now, there's no reason to change anything since most secondary sources will still continue to use the prevailing terms. The article Mission (LDS Church) was moved to Mission (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) without discussion, and right there you now have an article title that is unusually long (meaning every time someone wants to wikilink it, they have to type the entire thing), just because a well-meaning editor believed the church's branding preferences apply to everything that mentions it. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Support leaving things as is until WP:COMMONNAME would dictate otherwise. And just for clarity sake the current preferred terms presented by the LDS Church are frankly going to have issues of being too general in most usage anyway. Example, Church of Jesus Christ, technically can refer to any number of churches in their own view. For example the Catholic Church has been referred to as the "Church of Jesus Christ" or "the Church" in many contexts for centuries. But common usage for clarity sake has always favored "Catholic Church" or some variant of that as the name used in common usage so as not to confuse matters with the myriad of other uses for those multi meaning terms. Same logic would seem to apply here. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. It sounds like consensus is to keep our style guide the way it is. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen quite a few IPs trying to change articles. Most of them don't seem to realise that there is anything other then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Doug Weller  talk 14:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I respectfully beg to disagree with this assessment, Doug. I think that most people who are trying to make these changes are well aware of the existence of other churches which were born out of the broader Latter-day Saint movement, it's just that the wording of President Nelson's talk in the October 2018 conference makes it clear that using other names is offensive (not neutral) to devout Latter-day Saints and should be courteously and patiently corrected. Why should this not include a public space like Wikipedia? Kchallis (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not agree with the idea that Wikipedia contributors should refuse to adopt the official style guidelines posted on https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide. It seems to me that the entity/organization itself should hold the power to choose what it is and is not called in public spaces like Wikipedia. I think that President Nelson was eminently clear in his talk (see https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng - and I am sorry in advance for probably doing this incorrectly; I am still learning) about how people are expected to refer to it and its members, and this explicitly discourages terms like "Mormon" or "LDS." Here is a snippet from his talk, "Brothers and sisters, there are many worldly arguments against restoring the correct name of the Church. Because of the digital world in which we live and with search engine optimization that helps all of us find information we need almost instantly—including information about the Lord’s Church—critics say that a correction at this point is unwise. Others feel that because we are known so widely as “Mormons” and as the “Mormon Church,” we should make the best of it. If this were a discussion about branding a man-made organization, those arguments might prevail. But in this crucial matter, we look to Him whose Church this is and acknowledge that the Lord’s ways are not, and never will be, man’s ways. If we will be patient and if we will do our part well, the Lord will lead us through this important task...We will want to be courteous and patient in our efforts to correct these errors. Responsible media will be sympathetic in responding to our request." Wikipedia contributors should strive to be "responsible media" and avoid offending the millions of devout Latter-day Saints around the world. I do not think that abbreviations such as "LDS" are neutral anymore, and neither do the vast majority of my Latter-day Saint family, friends, or associates. The terms "Mormon" and "LDS" are falling out of use - and surprisingly quickly. Wikipedia should strive for total neutrality, including with devout believers. While the rest of the world takes time to adopt this linguistic change, why can't Wikipedia articles compromise and instead use phrases like, "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly called Mormons or LDS)"? Trying to be courteous and patient. Feeling frustrated. Kchallis (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * hi Kchallis, it can be frustrating to edit Wikipedia sometimes. I can see that you're appealing to my emotions in your plea to convince other editors to change. But the best way to enact change on Wikipedia is to refer to the original guideline or policy. As Gateman1997 mentioned, Wikipedia has a guideline for when someone or something announces a name change: Naming_conventions_(people). If "The terms "Mormon" and "LDS" are falling out of use", there should be proof of that in media apart from Church publications. If a newspaper or magazine independent from the church has stopped using "Mormon" and "LDS", we definitely want to know about it--it could mean that our policy should change.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In regular speech and in online communication with people in my church community, and in newspaper articles I have read since October citing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there has been a marked difference in how this name is used. I guess if I try to use a handful of articles I will be accused of not using "high quality, widespread sources." The AP Stylebook 2019 would be a good source to look to for guidance when it comes out next June, though from what I can tell it's behind a paywall. Kchallis (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * AP updates its styleguides. See https://twitter.com/APStylebook/status/1104071713476755457. Wikipedia should, too. Kchallis (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's fine for the AP to refer in articles to the church that way, but how do they deal with the broader movement? We generally do the same thing - when we discuss one denomination specifically we use its proper name, but when discussing the larger movement or group of churches we need to use a broader name. "Mormon" or "LDS movement" work well in most cases. I don't see how the AP style guide affects that at all, to be honest. Bradv 🍁  14:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe that "Therefore, the word Mormon should be used to refer to Latter Day Saint movement adherents only in the following situations: In reference to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." (in particular) should be changed, the world has been asked not to call members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "Mormons" anymore, and there is no reason that Wikipedia cannot acquiesce. There is no real reason not to, as it would be polite, and many people would find the continued use of the term offensive or objectionable, and it can be easily replaced. In my opinion, the use of Mormon and LDS would actually violate Etiquette, in that it likely does not follow bullet #2, and is probably not how most editors would like any organization that they care about to be treated under similar circumstances. Also, the idea of Don't be inconsiderate certainly applies here. In short, my argument is that, after doing a good deal of reading Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and essays, there is no reason not to do as we have been asked, and we have many reasons to do so. If your username was "Mr. Wolf the Third" and people usually called you "Lupin" and "MWT" insead of your full name, and you asked for it to be stopped, would "Well, that's what everybody else uses" be an acceptable reason to ignore the request? No, and why should this be any different? Rorix the White (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is surely different for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia it not a primary source. We use what "everybody else" uses as a core policy. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How is whether or not something is rude dependant upon what everybody else uses? I am saying that there are other policies and guidelines that apply here, and that they should not be ignored. Wikipedia being a secondary source has no bearing on my argument. Changing the wording used by other sources is done all the time. I don't think you quite grasp my statement. Rorix the White (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Among the problems with the proposed change is that it's highly ambiguous, and our adoption of it would be in favor of the church's point of view of Christianity. Church of Jesus Christ has a ton of potential meanings, many of which are related to smaller churches that grew out of the Succession Crisis, and some of which aren't, including the really basic concept of Christian Church, i.e. all Christianity.  And don't forget Church of Christ, which also has many meanings, and which could be confused with "Church of Jesus Christ".  (Church of Jesus, for some reason, is a specific church building in Italy.)  Moreover, saying that this church is the Church of Jesus Christ means that others aren't, and since all the others would disagree, it would be highly non-neutral.  And finally, "the Church" is most commonly used to refer to an established church, particularly the Catholic Church and sometimes established Protestant churches, e.g. the Church of England.  Using it out of that context (pretty much all post-independence US history is out of that context) is going to be confusing unless we've already clarified which church is being talked about.  Of course, once we've done that clarification, it's perfectly fine.  Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm still not seeing that the updated styleguides are all that different than what we currently have in place. The styleguides don't disallow the use of the word Mormon and neither should we. Of course we can and should use phrases like "members of the church" in appropriate situations, like when the name of the church is mentioned earlier in the paragraph, or when the article or section is about the church. But we're not going to move the article Mormons to Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or dissolve/merge the article Mormonism, because Mormonism is the name of the religion, and Mormons are the name of a diverse group of people (not all members of the LDS Church) who have been called that continuously from the 1830s to the present, and our articles need to respect and reflect that history. As for the shortened versions requested by the church, most are inappropriate for news organizations and Wikipedia with the extra capitalization ("the Church"), the over-generic "Church of Jesus Christ", or the mildly presumptuous "the restored Church of Jesus Christ". ~Awilley (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this statement. In general cases, I believe that the terms should be kept, but when speaking about TCoJCoLdS the general terms can and should be removed. Rorix the White (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I disagree that we should not change. We change names routinely at the request of organizations and people. In their style guide, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has specifically asked people not to use that the word "mormon" to refer to its members, but Wikipedia has specified that that word be used to refer to members of that church. CsikosLo (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This style guide page says "Several denominations, including the Community of Christ, generally oppose the use of the word Mormon or its derivatives in reference to its members or theology. Therefore, the word Mormon should be used to refer to Latter Day Saint movement adherents only in the following situations..." If this project will follow the request of the Community of Christ, why will it not follow the request of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? With some careful writing, we can find ways to be accurate without causing confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJHyatt (talk • contribs) 06:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Two-syllable Mormon is awfully convenient, colloquially or literarily, in comparison with say the six of Latter Day Saint movement and even the Latter-day Saints' religious authorities indicate that the term Mormon is acceptable even though its use is discouraged by them. That said, I agree with the reasonable compromise I referred to in a post further down on this talk page. In contexts where space or stylistic considerations trump formal accuracy, use the informal designation Mormon but within an exception to the usual practice on Wikipedia insist that when used for the Latter-day Saint people it be given in quotation marks i.e. as "Mormon."--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Section headings change a problem
I see a lot of one-off edits changing section headings that say Mormons or Mormonism and are not about any particular denomination to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". The reasons against doing this are obvious but I don't know how to catch them and I assume that quite a bit of this is being done without being spotted. Any suggestions? And what should such a section heading be? Doug Weller talk 09:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You could watchlist everything that comes up on a search. An edit filter could also catch them but might be overkill.  Beware that such changes may break incoming section links: for example if "Mormons and Foo" redirected to Foo#Mormons then it will no longer find the section without an anchor. Certes (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * An edit filter that tags edits removing the words "Mormon" or "LDS" would be effective. From what I've seen, most of these edits are misguided and not an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia at all, but they do usually have some unintended side effects with respect to readability, neutrality, and accuracy. Bradv 🍁  13:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal
The premierey-est day-to-day journalism abt er ah um theCofJCofLDS from a secular perspective being @ the SLC Tribune, it might not be such a terrible practice for WP to follow the Tribune's lead, journalistically speaking, by. . . well, yeah, not to do so w rgd especially historical usages or, say, such things as to so-called Mormon studies/whatnot. . . putting the word Mormon in scare quotes.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Example from CNN: https://www.wptv.com/news/national/why-the-mormon-church-changed-its-name-its-about-revelation-not-rebranding --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * +1 from me Rogerdpack (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)