Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints/Archive 4

Using (Latter Day Saint) instead of (Mormon) for disambiguation?
There are a few pages that use (Mormon) as a parenthetical to disambiguate a named page from other people with the same name. For example, William Clayton (Mormon) uses this. It is what this page currently recommends for parenthetical disambiguation. Would it be acceptable to change pages with (Mormon) to (Latter Day Saint)? The current style guide states " Members of the LDS Church may accurately be referred to as Latter-day Saints or as Mormons." "Latter Day Saint" (instead of Latter-day Saint) would include members of any of the Latter Day Saint movements, like "Mormon" does. What do you think? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard back from anyone yay or nay on this. I will be bold and make a change. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The current guidance at Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints) suggests that Mormon is still the appropriate term. Before we go changing all the articles, I would prefer to get some guidance from the wider naming community on this, as there are a lot of competing guidelines. For instance, WP:CONCISE would also favor Mormon over Latter Day Saint. I personally feel that scrubbing the word Mormon from our articles based on recent LDS Church guidance is problematic for a number of other reasons. For instance, Mormon is far more recognizable to people unfamiliar with the subject area (i.e. the vast majority of Wikipedia readers) and it's what people like William Clayton proudly self-identified as during their lifetimes. And I've found that the term Latter-day Saint with no other context can be quite confusing for Catholics in particular. (Their first association might be modern saints like Padre Pio.) I suggested having an RfC or an RM on this subject a while ago when John Pack Lambert was mass-moving articles. Maybe it's time. ~Awilley (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I ended up making the change on William Clayton, but not the other pages (for those of you reading along). "Latter Day Saint" is separate from "Latter-day Saint" in that "Latter Day Saint" refers to all of the churches within the Latter Day Saint movement. "Latter-day Saint" refers to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You make some good points. "Mormon" is probably more recognizable. I honestly don't know what the best thing to do is, and none of my co-workers seem to have strong opinions on the subject. I have a list of articles that currently use (Mormon) as a parenthetical disambiguator if that would be helpful. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Could I ask what the rationale is for wanting to move the articles? I know there are a couple editors here who get extremely offended when people say Mormon to the extent that they write it as M*rmon or stuff like that. I have a hard time taking that seriously with how recent the I'm a Mormon campaign was. I do understand wanting to move ahead with the rebranding and leave the old terminology behind, but I don't know how retroactive that should be. I asked my brother-in-law (a former member of the Tabernacle Choir) about the change and he basically said that to him, it will always be the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. I imagine many of the people whose biographies we write would have similar feelings if they were still living. I don't know how to best honor that history while not offending current orthodox members. ~Awilley (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe "John Taylor (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)"? Then it would be unambiguous, and follow the guidelines. Rogerdpack (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Here is my view on this, FWIW: Until the official name was given to the Church, there were several informally used names. And I think we'd need to be careful about which article names are switched to each informal term. In my view, Mormonism is an appropriate term when referring to the collective beliefs held by members and leaders of the churches which trace their origins back to Joseph Smith. An example would be Word of Wisdom (Mormonism) "Latter Day Saint" could best be employed in relation to leaders or beliefs dating before the succession crisis and splinter groups. Under such a change, John Taylor's article would be migrated from its' current name to something like John Taylor (Latter Day Saint). That's because Taylor's appointment occurred pre-succession crisis. And Latter-day Saint (or LDS Church) would be the best parenthetical employed for articles referring solely to the largest sect within the movement. That's the easiest way I've been able to explain the difference between the three terms to others in past discussions, and with a little effort, we could fairly easily migrate pages to match these general distinctions. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Right. That's the kind of change I think we'd need a WP:RM to enact. ~Awilley (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

My two cents. Wikipedia should never lead the charge, it should follow convention. The Associated Press and even the Salt Lake Tribune have modified their manual of style. Wikipedia is now outside the mainstream. Its time to update the Wikipedia MOS to mirror mainstream journalistic sources. I'd get behind Jgstokes recommendations. Epachamo (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is already in harmony with the style guide changes you mentioned. The article you linked clearly states that it's still fine to use "Mormon" or "Mormons" when "space or clarity" is an issue. Which it clearly is for Wikipedia article titles. If you want to cite the AP Styleguide changes, consider this: in their 2019 announcement the AP said, "When using the church’s full name, include a short explanation such as: "the church, widely known as the Mormon church..."  Our own style guide highly discourages the term "Mormon Church". I doubt you're wanting us to follow the AP's convention in that regard. ~Awilley (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I'd be fine mirroring the AP style guide exactly. Naming conventions I'd argue are incongruent with the AP style guide, which is the whole topic of this particular discussion. Epachamo (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have any strong opinion either way on the matter and never seen such a strong conversation (other than Nelson's comments a few years back) on this matter. I think the average reader will probably understand regardless how it's written (LDS, Latter-Day Saint(s), Mormon(s), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). For example, I never correlated a different meaning with a hyphenated Latter-day Saints with one that's not hyphenated like was stated by Rachael. Dmm1169 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I second @Rogerdpack the guidelines were intended as changes for anyone referring to the Church not just the news media. With |this talk, Russell M. Nelson made the issue of how to refer to the church an issue of clarifying church doctrine, not just an administrative change. This needs to be taken into account when deciding which short term to use.
 * I also agree with @Awilley and think we should follow the AP Stylebook which says:
 * "Note the capitalization and punctuation of Latter-day. The church in 2018 began moving away from the widely recognized terms Mormon church and LDS church, and now prefers that its full name be used and that members be referred to as Latter-day Saints.
 * Use the full name of the church on first references, with the church, church members, members of the faith preferred on second and later reference. When necessary for space or clarity or in quotations or proper names, Mormon, Mormons and Latter-day Saints are acceptable.
 * The term Mormon is based on the church’s sacred Book of Mormon and remains in common use by members of the faith. When using the church’s full name, include a short explanation such as, the church, widely known as the Mormon church ...
 * RELATED GROUPS: The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the splits after Smith’s death. This includes groups that call themselves “fundamentalist” and others that perpetuate Smith’s practice of polygamy, which the church renounced in 1890.
 * 'One offshoot group is the Community of Christ, headquartered in Independence, Missouri. For many decades, it was called the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (note the lack of a hyphen and the capitalized Day).'
 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' style guide says this:
 * "Style Guide — The Name of the Church]"
 * The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, an academic journal with similar aims as Wikipedia has these requirements in their style guide:
 * "::::*Mormon/Mormonism may be also used to characterize aspects of the history and cultural traditions of the groups based on the teachings of Joseph Smith but that are not formal parts of an institutional church:
 * Mormon foodways
 * Latter-day Saint prohibitions on hot drinks
 * When referring specifically to one church or tradition in a situation where Mormon may be taken to refer to Smith-based traditions more broadly, use the name of the church in question. When it is clear which institution is meant, the church may be used. When it is clear which group of believers is meant, Mormon may be used sparingly to vary use of more formal terms.
 * Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may be referred to as Latter-day Saints or, sparingly, as Saints or Mormons. Church members may also be appropriate if the church identity is clear
 * Use Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on first reference; thereafter, LDS Church may be used. Similarly, use Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on first reference; thereafter, FLDS may be used."
 * So if we were to adapt these three style guides for Wikipedia and try to make as many people happy as possible, that would mean:
 * Mormon changes to member of the Church of Jesus Christ in the first reference and then Latter-day Saint in subsequent references and when shorter forms are required, when referring to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
 * Mormon church changes to Church of Jesus Christ when obviously referring to the main sect, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (as requested | here by the Church's president and as explained in the first paragraph.) Then later on the church can be used for a shorter reference only when it does not cause confusion.
 * Mormon changes to Community of Christ when referring to members of the Community of Christ formerly known as The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Then later on the church can be used for a shorter reference only when it does not cause confusion.
 * Mormon changes to Strangite, when referring to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)
 * Mormon changes to Latter-Day Saint, Fundamentalist when referring to members of Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
 * Mormon changes to Latter Day Saint (no hyphen) when referring to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its members (the pre-martyrdom church). Saints in the plural may also be used, but infrequently and after clarification to avoid confusion. This would work in the same way the church can replace the full name of a given denomination.
 * Mormonism changes to Latter Day Saint Movement
 * Mormon Studies changes to Latter Day Saint Movement Studies when referring to more than just The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
 * Mormon culture changes to Latter Day Saint culture (no hyphen) when referring to more than one sect of the movement
 * Mormon culture changes to restored gospel of Jesus Christ when referring to the study of the culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by itself, not the greater movement
 * In article naming we can use (Latter Day Saint) to refer to concepts and groups that deal with the larger movement, while (Latter-day Saint) would refer to concepts and groups related with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and (Community of Christ) refers to concepts and groups related to the Community of Christ. For example:
 * Baptism in Mormonism changes to Baptism (Latter Day Saint Movement)
 * Temple (LDS Church) changes to '''Temple (Church of Jesus Christ)
 * Prophet-President changes to Prophet-President (Community of Christ) (I think the original article name is fine, but this pattern works for WP:D in the future)
 * LDS Church founder changes to Latter Day Saint Movement founder
 * LDS Church Apostle changes to Apostle (Church of Jesus Christ)
 * LDS Church in almost all cases in an article changes to the church.
 * Jmjosh90    20:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also as a side note, I think adopting the rest of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies' style guide as far as grammar and usage would be a great idea. I'll start a separate thread for that. Jmjosh90    20:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , you and, if you are inclined to personally believe that the guidelines were meant for everyone and not just members of the media, then feel free to do so. However, personal beliefs have no sway over what Wikipedia should or should not do policy-wise. I personally accept the guidelines as applicable to me as a Latter-day Saint blogger and Wikipedian, but I am not comfortable asserting that the guidelines should universally apply when the Church has not made any such statement. Open challenge: Find and cite one source, any source, from anywhere, that specifically states the guidelinse should either be universally applied instantaneously or that the guidelines are applicable to entites outside the media. You won't find any. Believe me. I know. And I've checked very thoroughly through any information I can find since the guidelines were introduced. The fact is that in introducing the guidelines in October 2018, President Nelson said: "Responsible media will be sympathetic in responding to our request." Exact words matter. And those are President Nelson's exact words. I don't think the Church would consider an online encyclopedia anyone can edit as "responsible media", and neither should we.
 * By all means, let's look at implementing the updated AP style guide parameters. But when it comes to that, the AP guideliens say to use the full name only on the first mention. For Wikipedia purposes, the "first mention" is the opening sentence of the lede paragraph, so listing the full name of the Church there, which is being done, is compliant with the guidelines.
 * Wikipedia thrives on short descriptions in article titles to make the articles easier to find. So there is nothing wrong with using LDS Church for disambiguation in article titles as long as the Church's full name is listed in the first sentence of articles about the Church. Additionally, there is a difference in terminology that needs to be understood here. Since other churches tracing their origins back to the church established by Joseph Smith do not adhere to the style guidelines, for Wikipedia purposes of differentiation, Mormonism refers to the collective theology and beliefs commonly shared by all the sects in the Latter Day Saint movement, which refers to any Church tracing their origins back to the church established by Joseph Smith. Latter-day Saint has been deemed an acceptable term by which to refer to beliefs, practices, leaders, and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is a distinction.
 * And since people seem to target pages relating to the larger Latter Day Saint movement with assertions that those pages should follow the guidelines, it needs to be recognized that the guidelines only apply to articles directly related to the Church, not those relating to any other sect in the movement, or the collective beliefs commonly shared by all sects within the Latter Day Saint movement. Continuously asserting your personal beliefs that the guidelines should apply everywhere, including Wikipedia, is not enough. In the absence of any sources supporting that position, it's no more and no less than a personal opinion, and that point is therefore moot. There is a layered nuanced process involved in trying to resolve this situation in the best possible way. Any solution needs to be worked out from the Latter Day Saint movement project first, then to trickle down to changes made here, and only then should attempts be undertaken to implement those chages once the other two processes are complete. Otherwise, this will be a chaotic situation that won't go anywhere.
 * As I said at the outset, as a Latter-day Saint blogger and Wikipedian, I have felt the guidelines personally apply to me, and I have made personal adjustments as a result. But I am not comfortable asserting that the guidelines meant for news media should apply to Wikipedia. There will be an arduous process to make any headway on this. The fact that almost 4 years have gone by since the guidelines were reiterated and that there are still misunderstandings of what has been specifically stated about the applicability of the guidelines means we are no closer to a resolution on any of this than we were after the guidelines were implemented. And that's true because there are simply not enough Wikipedia editors willing to accept the guideines for what they are now and strive to support them as they are while also working constructively through the proper channels and procedures to fix whatever issues might exist in those policies. And more than that, the guidelines are not universally applicable, because there are Latter Day Saint movement sects unrelated to the Church to whom the guidelines do not now and will not ever apply, which includes the commonly held beliefs of Mormonism, which remains an accepted term for those beliefs shared by any sect tracing their origins back to the Church originally established in 1830 by Joseph Smith.
 * No one is attempting to rebrand the Encylopedia of Mormonism, or Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine. So instead of repeatedly asserting personally-held interpretations of the guideline applicability that are not supported by reliable sources, could we please shift the focus towards proactive discussion of workable solutions that apply, first at the movement level, then here at the project level, and only then, to individual articles specifically about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Otherwise we will run around in circles still getting nowhere, and I wouldn't be shocked if, as a result, 4 years from now, we are still arguing semantics about personal interpretations of the guideline applicability rather than reaching any proactive result. Let's focus less on personal interpretations unsupported by sourcing and more on fixing this the right way. Could we please all agree to that? --Jgstokes (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jgstokes thank you for your insight. This is my first time participating in a discussion like this on Wikipedia, so please no biting. I have no idea where to start or participate in this discussion on the movement level, so that's why I voiced my opinion here. I do have more insight/reasoning about the issue that I would like to share somewhere so if you could point me (and everyone else who reads this later) to the right spot for this discussion I would really appreciate it.
 * Jmjosh90    22:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you felt I was biting the newcomer, I apologize. I can't just look at a user name and know how long they've been around, or what they do or do not know about the nuances relating to this matter. As I noted above, personal beliefs are all well and good on their own, which is why I have impmented the guidelines in my personal life. But Wikipedia has nuances relating to policy, and if discussions about changes are not handled in the right setting or in the right way, they will go nowhere. Things have remained unchanged primarily because there appears to be a shortage of editors willing to accept Wikipedia guidelines about the Church (as outlined in the manual of style as they are, while consistently and diligently working towards making changes that will benefit articles about the Church across the board. So fwhatever is changed won't happen overnight, and there is a process.
 * As I said, right now, this guidelines in this manual of style are driven by the curret parameters of the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, which is the main umbrella for every article about any of the sects tracing their origins back to Joseph Smith. Some of the parameters of that project guide the parameters of this manual of style, which in turn guide individual articles about The Church of Jesus Christ of Ltter-day Saints. So that project page would be the place to start, and active discussions have been underway there on how to address those issues. Once any necessary changes are approved at the project level, attention can then turn to updating this manual of style. When the manual of style has been updated, then would be the time to update individual articles so that the changes will be consistent on a projectwide basis with a fully updated manual of style. So my suggestion would be to handle things that way. In the meantime, for the benefit of all newcomers like yourself, efforts are also underway to draft specific guidelines relating to notability of leaders in the Church. Those proposed changes are being discusssed here.
 * And anyone is invited to weigh in with anything helpful. For example, if you have seen something I somehow missed that would indicate the Church intends the guidelines to be applicable to Wikipedia, that can be mentioned on the talk page for the appropriate project. The reason we've gotten nowhere on this in four years is simply because, as I said above, there is a shortage of editors willing to work around things as they are now while they also work to fix whatever might be borken policy-wise so that the larger longstanding problems with individual articles can then be address. Too many seem to expect that any effort co comply with the guidelines should be instantaneous. But that's not reasonable, because, as we know, it took some time for the "Church of Jesus Christ" domain name to become available and be procured by the Church for the website, and it took time to migrate all the main pages and subpages to the new URLs. Some of that still has not happened yet. So I do think it's unreasonable to assume that the degree to which Wikipedia is able to comply with the guidelines should be something that is handled immediately. The best efforts take time but are well worth it. Rome wasn't built in a day. Hope that helps clear up what I was trying to say. Jgstokes (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd rather use an external style guide, I don't think we should use any organisation's style guide instead of an independent one such as AP. I doubt it's relevant, but the main problem I have is editors changing to "Latter-Day Saints' inappropriately. Doug Weller  talk 12:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on both counts, . My point in this case was more to illustrate the fact that peope use the Church's updated style guide and what has been said about terminology to assert that the Church guidelines apply as equally here as they do to news organizations, and I've seen no evidence to support that assertion. The AP style guide is a stronger, more independent source than the Church's guidelines so we should use them. But for anyone to imply that the specific Church MOS and public statements from Church leaders are applicable to Wikipedia is both inaccurate and improper. Sorry if that caused confusion.  Jgstokes (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. Doug Weller  talk 19:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the research you did above. The quotes from the AP and Journal of Book of Mormon Studies styleguides are very helpful. The quotes from the LDS Church's styleguide not so much. (Their recommendations are so non-neutral that we can't use them on Wikipedia, and we prefer secondary/independent sources anyway.)
 * I also appreciate the specific suggestions you made above. However, many of them are either solving problems that don't exist, or are creating even bigger problems. For example: Mormon Church -> Church of Jesus Christ is solving a problem that doesn't exist (since we already don't use the term Mormon Church) and the term Church of Jesus Christ creates a big problem with neutrality and precision. (There are many churches of Jesus Christ...why is this one special that we should call it that, as if no others exist?) Mormonism -> Latter Day Saint Movement is also problematic because the two are different things. (The Latter Day Saint Movement is much bigger than just Mormonism.) ~Awilley (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I also appreciate the specific suggestions you made above. However, many of them are either solving problems that don't exist, or are creating even bigger problems. For example: Mormon Church -> Church of Jesus Christ is solving a problem that doesn't exist (since we already don't use the term Mormon Church) and the term Church of Jesus Christ creates a big problem with neutrality and precision. (There are many churches of Jesus Christ...why is this one special that we should call it that, as if no others exist?) Mormonism -> Latter Day Saint Movement is also problematic because the two are different things. (The Latter Day Saint Movement is much bigger than just Mormonism.) ~Awilley (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Use of "LDS Church"
I propose we discourage "LDS Church" in several places. It feels a bit outdated, and doesn't follow the AP style guide's or the church's. Thoughts/feedback? Cheers! Rogerdpack (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you propose that we use instead? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically the same as the AP style guide has: Use the full name of the church on first references. Phrasing such as "the church," "church members," "members of the faith" (without quote marks) is preferred on second and later reference." It could start as a suggestion "this is preferred"... feedback welcome, cheers and peace! Rogerdpack (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Adopting portions of Journal of Book of Mormon Studies' Style Guide
As mentioned in another section, I think the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies Style Guide has some good ideas for maintaining a uniform style that are based on The Chicago Manual of Style. I am specifically referring to the guidelines under the headings Abbreviations, Capitalization, Deity Pronouns, and Scripture References

Jmjosh90    20:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I like at least the part that says "Generally avoid LDS as a noun or adjective" :) The rest seems to agree fairly closely, though seems odd to me to not capitalize the "The" in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, since that's the name...just my take, peace! Rogerdpack (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This manual still does not adequately reflect changes in 2018
This manual still does not adequately reflect changes in 2018. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has asked A-that people refer to it by its full name B-that people not refer to it by various nicknames, and C-that people refer to the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints either as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or as Latter-day Saints. We should A-make sure to always refer to it in first reference as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints b-name articles related to it, and the Latter-day Saint movement and related things in ways that reflect the fact that over well over 90% of people in the Latter-day Saint movement do not accept nicknames derived from the name of an ancient prophet, c-in a large number of references it would make much more sense to refer to "Latter-day Saints". We really should overhaul our articles and in article rhetoric to at least somewhat comply. For one thing, in very long articles, it really makes sense to use the whole name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" not just in the first reference in the article, but in the first reference in each section. Wikipedia has no space concerns, and while within sections there may be other stylistic reasons to shorten references, in a long article especially one specifically related to practice of thelogy, including multiple full references to the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the most logica action.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Mormonism Venn Diagram.png
 * I'm bringing up this venn diagram again because most of the changes seem fine, assuming they're applied only to articles about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They cannot be applied to topics and articles that discuss Mormonism as a whole, only to topics with a direct scope of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I also don't support removing every instance of the common name "Mormon" if that is what you're implying by saying we should not use various nicknames. –– FormalDude  talk  20:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (Technically, I think that is an Euler diagram, not a Venn diagram.) --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Figures. I failed my "principles of mathematics" class in college...the one all about proofs and subsets and stuff. ~Awilley (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record here, I feel it's worth noting a couple of things. First, although guidelines about correcting the name of the Church were given in 2018, material released at around the same time and expanded since have clarified that the guidelines in question were primarily meant for the media, both those entites who broadcast the news and and provide online reports. Those additional clarifications also urged Church members to be patient in situations where there may be delays in following through on this. While official Church websites implemented those changes instantaneously (which was also true for the LDS Church Temples site, which was shifted to the Church of Jesus Christ Temples site.
 * And from the time those guidelines were released, the complexities of shifting an entire website (LDS Church Growth Blog is a prime example) to a more compliant name would take quite a bit of effort, assuming that the content of that site could be shifted to an available web address. The owner of that blog, Matthew Martinich, has covered his bases regarding the statement by changing the LDS Church Growth heading on any given page of his website to read: "Growth of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)."
 * Based on my understanding of articles I've read about utilizing the correct name of the Church, insofar as I have been able to ascertain, Wikipedia, which by reputation prides itself on being "an online encyclopedia anyone can edit" would not necessarily fall within the parameters of organizations that should be using the correct name of the Church. Insofar as I have been able to ascertain, no one has taken isssue with Matthew Martinich's solution as has been applied to his blog.
 * Wikipedia also has nuances that might make it more difficult ti implement any changes or corrections across the board in any meaningful way. As per Wikipedia's definitions, Mormonism refers to and is correctly employed as a term relating to the beliefs of any of the "splinter groups" of religions tracing their origins back to Joseph Smith. The Latter Day Saint movement refers to any of the sects or splinter groups that trace their origins back to Joseph Smith. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the largest religious organization of the splinter groups. And top leaders have referred to Church members as Latter-day Saints, so I don't see a problem retaining that terminology.
 * That being said, are there some things in Wikipedia articles covering Church topics that could be improved? Absolutely, and sometimes the process of making those improvements have been slower than many (myself included) might like to see. But as someone who accepts that the guidelines are applicable to me as a member of the Church, but who also edits Wikipedia articles about Church subjects, I fully recognize that meaningful changes to policies, guidelines, and manuals of style takes a lot of time and effort, especially on the part of those who are trying to keep the articles compliant with the current guidelines while also trying to figure out how any changes could be appropriately named.
 * I'd also like to note that there are currently an insufficient number of editors who are willing to uphold the current guidelines as the necessary status quo while also doing anything proactive about changing or updating the relevant policies. In my opinion, any article about the current Church can include (LDS Church) in the article title, as long as the full name of the Church is listed once in the lede paragraphs for such articles. Since no one seems to be taking exception to the Church Growth Blog doing that (which is easier than moving the site to a more compliant web address), I think that's a perfectly acceptable arrangement for Wikipedia articles for the time being. Unless we are willing to uphold and maintain the current MOS as the governing guidelines on this for now, we won't have any success in trying to implement changes in the future. And if there were more people with Wikipedia experience involved in this matter, I think we'd easily get much closer to acceptable resolutions.
 * With that in mind, I also feel it's not in keeping with the spirit of the guidelines to insist that Wikipedia immediately and fully comply therewith. That's not how Wikipedia works, And we are going to have a difficult time making any changes whatsoever to those guidelines if a majority of secondary sources are still not opting to follow the guidelines. When issues like this come up, Wikipedia is obligated to go by what a majority of the sources say. So unless anyone pushing for these changes on Wikipedia is willing to reach out to all secondary sources sharing items about the Church and can convince all of them to comply with the guidelines, Wikipedia will still need to utilize the terminology in those sources. To do anything different would violate Wikipedia policies.
 * And again, I'm weighing in here as someone who has personally adopted the guidelines in my own efforts, but who knows that the nuances and issues relating to effecting changes in these articles will be an uphill battle as long as a majority of sources are not bothering to correct their usage of those terms. If there were enough of us who could be focused on upholding the current guidelines while also seeking to establish consensus about possible changes to the MOS, then we might be better positioned to resolve this. But simply insisting that Wikipedia immediately and permanently comply with guidelines that were, from what I've been able to ascertain, meant to be used primarily by the media, and not to a similar extent in an online encyclopedia anyone can edit, will never yield meaningful changes. The process of making any change to Wikipedia content that has been kept to a certain status quo takes time, and requires patience from everyone involved in discussions about making those changes. Just my two cents on this issue, for whatever they might be worth to all who read them. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there are a couple guidelines we could implement on this page that would be beneficial for Wikipedia. Perhaps if we're wanting to avoid using the word "Mormon" when directly referencing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, something could be added to the "Avoidance of anachronistic terminology" section. We could add asterisks to the short names listed in the "Denominations and recommended short forms" section as well, stating that the term was depreciated in 2018. –– FormalDude  talk  04:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To me the guidelines are for more than just media but are for more general changes. Peace and joy! Rogerdpack (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , it makes no difference whether or not individual editors are of the opinion that the guidelines do apply to Wikipedia. Unless we have something official from the Church or one of its' leaders that specifically says the guidelines are meant to apply to Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the particular point of individual feeling or preference is moot. And even if the Church formally said the guidelines to apply equally to Wikipedia, there are specific Manuals of Style that need to be updated first. I still stand by my statement that the mention of the Church's full name on first reference is compliant enough with the guidelines for now. We can talk about and work through semantics and specifics on a project-level basis. If the guidelines related to the Latter Day Saint movement project change, then we can make changes to this manual of style, and only then would it be appropriate to make the necessary changes in all applicable articles. That's the way Wikipedia works.
 * In any case, while I have not seen anything indicating the guidelines are meant to apply to Wikipedia, I'd refer you to Elder Andersen's talk from last October's General Conference. If you scroll down to the section "Appreciation for the Help of Others", the second paragraph notes: "We realized that adding six words to our name would not be ideal for the media, but, as President Nelson foretold, 'responsible media will be sympathetic in responding to our request.'" That is a direct quote from Elder Andersen, who in turn quoted the original August 2018 announcement from President Nelson and his October 2018 General Conference talk outlining this course correction. I don't think the Church would, by any stretch of the imagination, consider Wikipedia "responsible media". Do you? In any case, let's worry about changing the project guidelines. From there, this MOS can be updated, and only then would it be appropriate to propose and implement changes to articles about the Church. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for weighing in here. I have long felt that meaningful changes for articles in this project were not able to be made due to a lack of people willing to be objective relating to the considerations at hand. I believe what you suggested would be supportive of established Wikipedia guidelines, while also making some allowances for the reemphasis of the usage of correct terminology. Unless anyone else here has any objections, I'd say that's a good starting point. In the past, I know that some who have commented on implementing those changes have noted that it's unclear whether the reiteration of these guidelines will result in lasting changes for the Church, but from public statements that have been issued by top leaders, it appears more likely that these reiterated guidelines will be the new status quo going forward. Again, your suggestion seems like a good place to start. I appreciate you weighing in on that. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I can certainly see why you feel that way,, and it's also why'd I've opted to take the WP:BRD route here and implement my aforementioned changes. I'd appreciate if you could review | my edit to make sure it matches our goal, and also to ensure I didn't miss anything. –– FormalDude  talk  06:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have looked over the changes you made to the MOS as you requested. I believe that your changes do sufficiently cover the concerns at hand. And I'm especially appreciative of the clarification you provided about the deprication of the "Mormon" terminology, and how it should be used primarily in relation to coverage about the early years of the Church. I would need to check some of the resources I have available, but I believe that, to a certain extent, there may have been times in early Church history where, since the term was derogatory, the Church members shied away from using that. Of course, there is also the fact that those Latter-day Saints who helped the US during the 1840s' war with Mexico were known by the name of the Mormon Batallion, and that the term was applied for years to the "Mormon Miracle Pageant". So although the term has recently been depricated, and although it appears that such terminology won't be used again, there may be some nuances relating to the use of the term that we might need to work Around. Aside from noting that, I think your changes accomplish what a few of us have been trying unsuccessfully to do for the 3 years since a reemphasis of the correct name of the Church was first mentioned. I also know that on my talk page, we've discussed other factors relating to establishing notability for Church submjects and leaders, even when the only sources available are those owned or endorsed or supported by the Church. So if these updated guidelines settle the terminology issue, I think the next most logical step would be to work on establishing notability criteria specific to the Church, the sources that cover them, and the general leaders thereof. Any suggestions you have on that side of things would likewise be welcome. Thanks for inviting me to review those updates. I appreciate your continued efforts. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't know if I would go so far to say that we should only use "Mormon" for pre-1844 people. What about people who joined the church before 1844 and died much after? Or people who identify culturally as Mormon but are no longer members (like with my List of Mormon Cartoonists)? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You have likewise been a long-time contributor to Wikipedia articles about the Church, so I appreciate the points you made in your comment above. I agree with what you said. At least one of the Wikipedia pages for Latter-day Saint prophets (John Taylor, if memory serves) disambiguates his name by using the parenthetical Mormon epithet. Since that's an easier disambiguator than using (LDS Church), as some articles about the modern Church do, or the full name of the Church might be problematic in such cases. In view of your role with the BYU-Provo Library that extends to your work on Wikipedia, you might know quite a bit more than I do or than does about correctly applying the usage of the "Mormon" terminology in cases such as the one you described. So I'd like to extend an open invitation to you. In my recent exchanges with FormalDude on changes to the LDS MOS, he referred to changes he had made to that MOS as a result of exchanges with me. Therefore, unless FormalDude has any objections, in view of your key contributions to articles about the Church and its' leaders, particularly in the early decades of the Church, if you have any suggestions about any improvements to the updates made by FormalDude, I would welcome your input there, and hope that FormalDude would, in view of my expressed support of your contributions, would also not object to anything you feel you could contribute in terms of additional changes to the MOS in question. Thank you for your observations, which are well-taken and absolutely need to be considered, IMHO. --Jgstokes (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to edit the MOS itself, because I definitely have a conflict of interest. If you want anything official from the church, they would be in favor of deprecating "Mormon." They don't even use it for my co-workers' titles anymore. However, I personally believe that the word "Mormon" still reflects current usage and is useful for describing cultural movements like in what I described above. Another example is in "Mormon fiction". "Fiction in the Latter Day Saint movement" would be inaccurate, since it isn't published by the church and isn't all about the church either. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For clarification, the update I made to the manual of style specified that it is okay to use the word "Mormon" when referring to people pre-2018, since that was the year it was officially deprecated.
 * I also certainly welcome your input in drafting of potential SNGs at User talk:FormalDude/Notability (Latter Day Saints)! –– FormalDude  talk  19:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that additional context. I will keep that in mind. And if any of you reading this do not have a conflict of interest and would have any input on the continued usage of that term where it is appropriate to do so, your input would likewise be welcome. For the time being, I agree with the points made here that in some cases, the usage of the "Mormon" terminology would be more correct than using "Latter-day Saint" terminology. Further, to reiterate, I fundamentally disagree that the usage of the "Mormon" terminology is as offensive as racial, ethnic, political, or religious slurs that have clearly been defined as offensive by the general population. In conjunction with the updated guidelinepps, the Church has clarified certain cases where the usage of the "Mormon" terminology is still deemed acceptable and accurate, so it's plain from those clarifications that the Church does not see the applicable use of the term as offensive. That being said, if anyone is aware of any official Church statements which have been released in the last 3 years or less that speicifically state that the Church as an institution sees that terminology as being on par with the other clearly-defined offensive terms, please feel free to note that here. Thanks again, everyone! --Jgstokes (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting that I have reverted FormalDude's good faith changes. There were too many problems and ignored nuances, and I don't think we have consensus here to "deprecate" the word Mormon yet. Specific issues I have with the changes are:
 * Only using "Mormon" when referencing adherents of more than one denomination at the same time. That is contrary to how the word is used in the sources.
 * Never using "Mormon" to refer to a member of the LDS Church. Again, this is not what the sources do.
 * The suggestion that we use 2018 as a cutoff date is a creative idea that we can discuss. I've also thought about avoiding the term "Mormon" for all current LDS Church leaders.
 * I highly recommend reading Peggy Fletcher's piece in Dialogue: a Journal of Mormon Thought link. It gives an idea of what some of the nuances are and what a full-time religion writer at a major newspaper in Utah is doing about the word. (Hint:she's not deprecating it.) The surrounding articles are also a good read. ~Awilley (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that a person or organization has unique authority concerning what they want to be called or named. A large history of alternative monikers doesn’t change an organization's unique authority concerning their current name. For example Russia is no longer the USSR. Things change. If the church has a style guide about how to refer to them, then it seems polite to follow it. Saying that we have to refer to them in a manner that they don’t prefer because that is how others have been referring to them that way for a long time, and until that changes then WP MOS wont change seems circular. Tridentata.A (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia editors and readers who are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will inevitably object to our referring to ourselves or our beliefs via terms such as "the Church of Jesus Christ" or "the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ", because outsiders will see these phrases as vague (many churches, not just ours, consider themselves to be included as part of "the Church of Jesus Christ") and/or biased (people outside our faith generally do not accept our teachings as constituting "the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ"). We here, on Wikipedia, are obligated to respect a "neutral point of view" (WP:NPOV), and the expressions being put forth here are unabashedly not even close to NPOV — any more than, for example, the use by Jehovah's Witnesses of the term "Christians" to refer exclusively to their own church and its beliefs (in accordance with their insistence that they, Jehovah's Witnesses, are in fact the only real Christians) would be acceptable for general use in Wikipedia or anywhere else outside of JW publications or internal communications.  While I agree with you, in principle, that we should respect an organization's wishes regarding how they should be called, we simply can't do this if the result would be either a failure to communicate (i.e., readers not understanding exactly what "the Church of Jesus Christ" refers to) or making Wikipedia "take sides" (i.e., saying, in Wikipedia's editorial voice, that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in fact Christ's one and only church and teaches His authentic Gospel).  This, I believe, is at the heart of Wikipedians' objections to "the Church of Jesus Christ", "the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ", and other such expressions, regardless of how strongly the Church is insisting that everyone, both inside and outside the Church, should use these phrases and abandon "LDS" or "Mormon".  Can you offer a solution which would allow for the use of these expressions which while still respecting readers who either do not understand them or do not accept our exclusive claim to them?  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

If the first reference to the organization is the full name of the church, and subsequent references use the acceptable option “the church” as an abbreviated reference, then that option is a neutral point of view, but possibly ambiguous depending on the context. What if the requirement for an abbreviated moniker being neutral and unambiguous  and acceptable to the organization’s own style guide are not possible to fill, then why does the need for brevity trump the other requirements? Why not eliminate the abbreviated moniker that is unpalatable to the named. If my name was William and had been know as Bill as a child, but now as an adult I politely inform you I now prefer William, continuing to call me Bill seems disingenuous. Tridentata.A (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

If the objection to a shortened moniker such as “The Church of Jesus Christ” is that it is not a neutral point of view, could the same argument be made that “Mormon Church” is also not a neutral point of view because it arguably takes the position that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not The Church of Jesus Christ? Sometimes it seems that the moniker “Mormon” or “Mormon Church” is used derisively, if so does that make it no longer neutral? To my ears the name “LDS Church” now carries the same negative bias and connotation, although that didn't used to be the case. What truly defines a moniker as acceptably neutral? Is it a democratic vote? Is it the opinion of a meritocracy? Tridentata.A (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * A neutral point of view is determined by many factors, including things that are said in reliable sources (preferably "secondary" sources not originating with or controlled by the subject of an article). I would recommend carefully studying WP:NPOV (the Neutral Point of View general policy document), as well as WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:NPOVNAME (portions of the general policy document on the naming of articles).  Keep in mind that NPOV is considered one of the core, non-negotiable principles of Wikipedia (see WP:PILLARS); the only entity that has ultimate authority to override NPOV (or community consensus regarding what NPOV means in a given situation) is the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), via an Office Action, but please note that the WMF almost never intervenes in disputes regarding NPOV or anything else except in the most extreme cases.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems as though there is a majority consensus on this issue - most on this talk page are requesting the change to honor members of the Church. Since there is now majority, we should act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.112.18 (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * That is called "misrepresenting consensus", and it is viewed rather dimly. There is most definitely not. (Also, note that several of the editors who participated above are Latter-day Saints, and they aren't actually saying that Wikipedia should use the "offical" church recommended terms either, so I think that says something) Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 06:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization issue
In this edit way back in 2006, the point "(there is currently a lack of consensus as to whether to capitalize The in the title)" was replaced by "* In article names, references to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should capitalize the initial The ....". This is contrary to MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, which say we use sentence case in titles; we don't have different rules for what to capitalize in article names, other than the first letter, compared to what we have in sentences. I think the consensus on this and other such cases has generally been to use lowercase "the" in sentences, and therefore also in title where The is not the first word. I made such a move recently, and was reverted based on this old/obscure/incompatible guidance. Dicklyon (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I recently brought this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters, where it got very little attention. My suspicion is that nobody's in the mood to argue about (an issue near to) religion these days. Capitalization for one organization seems to be seen by some as an exception to the general rule, but I don't think it is. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 17:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry I had missed that one. Anyway the statement about "In article names" is clearly incompatible with the rest of WP capitalization guidance.  If we can't settle this, we should at least go back to what it used to say: "(there is currently a lack of consensus as to whether to capitalize The...). Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Coming here from WP:RM/T. The line should be removed ASAP. It directly goes against MOS:THEINST, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS from the LDS WikiProject cannot override community-wide consensus. All of the articles at Latter-day Saints which violate Wiki policy/guidelines should be moved as well. Adding a notice to the talk pages of those articles before we do this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The MOS has included "capitalize the initial The ..." for over 15 years. There was a discussion that involved a number of editors at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints/Archive 2. With respect to the usage in article name titles, I believe the argument is based not on the institute's usage (like "The Ohio University") but on the proper name of the church, similar to The Hague or The Citadel or other examples from WP:THE (though interestingly not all are consistent in this, which makes assessing a pattern slightly difficult). Given that the community is very quick to push back against changes to this MOS without sufficient discussion and given the extent of the previous discussion, I would recommend waiting for further input or going through a formal discussion like an RFC. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is, this MOS (which only concerns LDS articles) conflicts with MOS:THEINST (which concerns all articles). This isn't allowed, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Also, WP:THE does not apply here. The only LDS article that falls under WP:THE is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that MOS:THEINST is the correct policy to point to, however, for the case of article titles. For the style guideline on capitalization in article titles, which I think is the focus of this discussion, we should look at WP:NCCAPS. WP:NCCAPS does allow for subsequent words in an article title to be capitalized when it is part of a proper name, of course with the caveat that "when in doubt, reliable reference works for capitalization conventions and other style matters may be useful". --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well of course proper names should always be capitalized, that's a must. But the key difference is "the" is an article, which has its own guidelines on Wikipedia. In this case, that guideline would be MOS:THEINST, since the LDS Church is an organization. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But MOS:CAPS, under which MOS:THEINST falls, is not directly meant for article titles - that's why it has the hatnote pointing to WP:NCCAPS at the top. The argument that I and other editors are likely to make is that "The" is part of the proper name of the church, and therefore falls under the exception in WP:NCCAPS and MOS:TITLECAPS for capitalization of proper names. There are examples of journalistic sources, excluding church-affiliated sources, such as the Salt Lake Tribune which do treat it as such. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's unclear why you say MOS:CAPS is "not directly meant for article titles".  WP:NCCAPS says "For details on when to capitalize on Wikipedia, see the manual of style sections on capital letters and, when relevant, on trademarks."  And WP:TITLEFORMAT says "words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text." Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

We should probably take this back to WT:MOSCAPS where it started, and where I've listed a couple of proposals to consider. Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting this out. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * One tries. Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)