Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)/Archive 1

2003
For earlier discussions on this topic, see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Mormon)

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not saying that the wishes of the LDS Church should be ignored, but they should be weighed against other concerns, such as: Martin
 * Brevity (particularly in titles)
 * The principle of least astonishment
 * NPOV and offence-avoidance

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

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

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

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

Here is what I propose (which is consistent with wiki policy and the Church's preference):
 * do not use "LDS", "LDS Church", "Mormon Church" or "the Church of Jesus Christ"
 * use the Church's full name only in articles and only as the first reference or when necessary to clearly refer to the Church
 * articles that are titled like "Priesthood (LDS)" should be titled like "Priesthood (Mormonism)"
 * "Latter-day Saints" should be used over "Mormons"

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

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


 * The only problem I see with this compromise is that "the Church" is used in many other contexts to refer to either the aggregation of everyone who calls themself a Christian, some other particular "branch" of Christianity, or to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church referred to in the Nicene Creed. Perhaps to avoid this confusion, the first reference could include the full name followed by "(hereinafter referred to simply as the Church)", and leaving the references as they are. Would everyone find this clarifying addition to the beginning acceptable? As an aside, why would referring to them as the LDS Church for brevity be objectionable, as it appears to be a simple contraction of the full name? Wesley 15:27 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Wesley, I think you and Lenny are suggesting the same thing: full name in the first use, then abbreviated use thereafter. "LDS Church" is only a partial contraction of the full name. From a Latter-day Saint POV, use of "LDS Church" is objectionable for the same reason that "Mormon Church" is objectionable: it claims to be the church of Jesus Christ, not the church of (the) Mormon(s) nor the church of the Latter-day Saints. —B 22:43, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think I can go along with abbreviating it as "the Church" in most cases, as long as the first usage contains the full name so it's clear what is meant. There might be a few instances where something like "LDS Church" might be needed to disambiguate it from other groups. This shouldn't be seen as pejorative or a negation of the Church's claims, but comparable to how many articles use terms like "Roman Catholic Church" or "Eastern Orthodox Church" to clarify who is meant, even though the first could well argue that they extend far beyond Rome and have Patriarchs all over, and the second isn't just Eastern anymore but has a presence throughout the world. And both also claim to be the church of Jesus Christ.


 * As far as calling members Latter-day Saints, I suppose that can work as long as the context makes clear who is meant. My personal idea of a latter-day saint of course would be someone like Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco, who lived in the 20th century and was officially dubbed an Orthodox saint I think sometime in the 1980s, well known for his piety and his miracles. In the articles here, given context, we can probably avoid that sort of confusion fairly easily. Wesley 13:03, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Latter-day Saints and the Church's POV on terms referring to them
I think the term "Mormonism" should be avoided. This is a term used primarily by church opponents, so it's not suitable as a "neutral" term. We could say, however, that a particular church critic refers to LDS beliefs as "Mormonism".

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


 * Ed, have you even bothered to read the prior discussion on this subject: Naming conventions (Mormon)?! Or even noticed Visorstuff's post and mine to YOU a few days ago!? The Church's website itself explicitly states: "The term “Mormonism” is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." As a sixth-generation Mormon, I'm not happy with your well-intentioned, poorly executed attempt to NPOV Church and Mormon related articles. I specifically setup this naming convention article to avoid the sort of reckless, uncollaborative editing you and Anome have undertaken. I'm pissed! B 17:53, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * Ed, don't get me wrong. I want you and Anome and whoever else (the more the merrier) to participate and help formulate the convention, but you guys were not paying attention. Let's try and get on the same page and have some consensus before you start making dramatic changes like that. Maybe we should go in the direction you've driven recently, but let's have some discussion first and get on the same page, please. At the moment, I think your changes are for the worse, not the better. B 17:59, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

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


 * This was debated quite a bit and archived I believe, but I haven't read it. Regardless, I feel significantly dogmatic about this subject (even if I don't apply it consistently sometimes). I'm partial to the "LDS Church" usage, just because it is more specific than "the Church" and it is nicely shorter than the full name or "the Church of Jesus Christ".


 * I am the bloke above who wrote that. As a newbie wikipedian I used that terminology...but you didn't complete the whole quote in which I said: "However....All references in wiki to "Mormon Church", "LDS Church" or "the Church of the Latter-day Saints" or the like should be changed to one of the acceptable formats." B 20:13, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

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

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


 * Neither Mormonism nor Mormon are necessarily put-downs...it depends on the context. B 20:15, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * Of course, and Mark Twain was not being racist when he called the darkies niggers in Huckleberry Finn. The question, of course, is whether Wikipedia articles should use niggers rather than blacks in articles. And likewise whether Mormonism is the best way to refer to LDS doctrines or practices. --Uncle Ed 20:19, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


 * Hear! Hear! Hawstom 07:03, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

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


 * I quote again the Church's explicitly policy at its website: "The term “Mormonism” is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." The mainstream Church does accept use of the term Mormonism in reference to itself. B 21:08, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree that generally articles related to Mormonism now focus on the Church and its members rather than non-Church-member-Mormons, but eventually Mormonism related articles will be filled out more broadly. Your last comment about grudging acceptance seems to contradict your comment that the Church finds the term acceptable. B 21:01, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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

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

Outstanding Issues
What I want to see hashed out further is: If someone else has lingering concerns add it to the list. Are interested parties satisfied with the conventions that are now stated in the meta-article? I want to make sure we get this right. --B 05:21, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
 * 1) Why not use the full name of the Church instead of a shorter term like "Mormonism" in titles?
 * 2) Why not use "LDS" as a short reference for "Latter-day Saints"
 * 3) Why not use "LDS Church" as a short reference for the full name of the Church?

Coming to this late, but here are some important statements. DJ Clayworth 05:46, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * 1) The guidelines say to use 'the church' to refer to the CoJCoLDS. This should only be done where there is not danger of confusing it with any other church, i.e. in articles that talk only about the CoJCoLDS and no other churches.
 * 2) Most of our articles don't distinguish between  CoJCoLDS and other Mormon churches, so presumably we should use 'Mormon' in them wherever possible.
 * 3) 'Church members teach'. They may teach woodworking or Chemistry; what 'The church teaches' is a much better way to describe the accepted doctrines of the church.


 * Glad you are participating, DJ. Everyone agrees with your first comment. Please clarify your second comment. Two problems with "the Church teaches": it is a category mistake; and it is a sloppy substitute for citing doctrines and has been a problem of misstating doctrines. If the wikipedian cares enough to add the material, it should be well-cited in the first place. It is far harder to fix misstatements than get it right in the first place. --B 06:29, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * 1) Why not use the full name of the Church instead of a shorter term like "Mormonism" in titles? -- I can't think of a good reason, provided there are copious redirects from shorter titles.
 * 2) Why not use "LDS" as a short reference for "Latter-day Saints" -- Because the LDS church doesn't like it?
 * 3) Why not use "LDS Church" as a short reference for the full name of the Church?-- Because the LDS church doesn't like it? (irony intended)

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

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


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

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

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


 * Good Question, I've never thought of that. (Noldoaran is "LDS") Noldoaran 06:14, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * From what I can gather, many of these organizations consider themselves "Mormons", and some even consider themselves to be "Latter-day Saints". And some who follow Joseph Smith, Jr. would not call themselves either "Mormons" or "Latter-day Saints", but would nevertheless argue that they practice or believe in "Mormonism".  Thus, I think that "Mormonism" is the probably the broadest, most agreeable term for those who trace their belief system back to Joseph Smith.COGDEN 18:22, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I feel I am qualified to answer the original question under this heading, as I am a member of an RLDS Restoration Branch The term "Mormon" and "Mormonism" should either:
 * 1) Only apply to the Utah-based LDS church, OR
 * 2) Only apply to those churches that use the term

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


 * History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
 * Priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
 * Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
 * Authoritarianism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
 * Endowment (Latter-day Saint)

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


 * Blacks and Mormonism
 * Women and Mormonism
 * Mormonism and Christianity
 * Mormonism and Judaism
 * Restoration (Mormonism)

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


 * Apostle (Mormonism)
 * Apostle (Latter-day Saint)

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


 * I agree wholeheartedly with this formulation. It makes the most sense, and is most consistent with Wikipedia practice in other contexts.  In titles specifically about the COJCOLDS with parentheticals, we can't use names such as "(LDS Church)" that could also apply to other churches.  The use of "Latter-day Saint" in parenthetical titles is much more convenient than spelling out the entire name of the church, as in "Apostle (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)", which is probably too long for a parenthetical.  On the other hand, in articles such as History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there is no reason not to spell out the entire name of the church. COGDEN 07:18, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * What we also need is a convention for how to refer in parentheticals to churches other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Here is a table with some rough suggestions:


 * COGDEN 07:18, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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


 * Er, what article? Hawstom 22:45, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * The Naming conventions (Mormonism) article.COGDEN 00:33, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


 * I added this as a item under WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement before I saw that it was discussed here - the concensus above seems to be that adding The to the front of the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is appropriate. If there are no objections indicating a need for a vote - I will make the change. Following the name change I will work on the project to correct links to properly point to the new page and underline the word The in the link. See more detail at the project talk page --Trodel 18:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * There has been a request for additional comments re this issue and request for comments on renaming similar pages as History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which I support)(as mentioned by CO GDEN  above) -- For additional comments please go to Latter Day Saint movement project talk page so there will be one place fore comments/discussion. --Trodel 23:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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


 * Again I'll weigh in - this has a different historical context than the name of the Church. No capital "The" is neccesary - the difference would be if you have five "Books of Mormon" or five of "The Book of Mormons". The proper grammatical usage is Books of Mormon, although the proper title is "The Book of Mormon" (Although current LDS edition is "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ"), as registered by the Library of Congress. Confused? Bottom line is that from a Latter Day Saint viewpoint, giving the different edition titles and early usage in the Church prior to the administration of Brigham Young (prior to the great divide, if you will), the proper reference should be "Book of Mormon" - no capital 'T' in "the." If referring to specific editions of the book, it should be noted as it was registered, when the edition was registered and which edition it is being referred to. Stupid, but CoC folks would get upset in a Latter Day Saint article to LDS referring to the "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" as part of the title - it wasn't when Smith first published it as the Book of Mormon. -Visorstuff 18:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * If we are talking about reasons for the convention, I am still having a hard time understanding the logic behind Book of Mormon. Was not the title from day one The Book of Mormon?  Doesn't proper grammar say I have ten copies of The Book of Mormon and there are currently X printed editions of The Book of Mormon.  Now I am beginning also to wonder if COgen's count above of Ensign usage includes adjectival uses. As an adjective, the reasonable usage would be of course Book of Mormon.  Hence:
 * "I believe The Book of Mormon to be an ancient document."
 * "I have 6 copies of The Book of Mormon at my home."
 * "I am interested in studying Book of Mormon archeaology."
 * "Were the Book of Mormon source plates claimed to be gold, or merely golden?" (This is an actual question I want to address :-D).
 * Tom - Talk 21:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, The Book of Mormon was translated from actual plates of gold. Please refer to here for more info. Iamunknown 08:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. Moroni is quoted (Joseph Smith History) as telling Joseph Smith in his first visit that there were "gold plates deposited".  Tom - Talk 16:44, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

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

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


 * I realize this was posted over a year ago, but I feel it merits further discussion. I notice that on this page this guideline is not respected "the The in the Church's title should always be capitalized".
 * Personally, I think that this guideline should not apply specifically to the LDS Church, but to all articles on Wikipedia. Currently Roman Catholic Church uses "the Church", as does (some of the time) Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
 * On the other hand, I don't really care which one is used, and I don't feel that a capital C - in any religion's article - is a problem. In fact, I think it looks a little better with a capital C. That being said, my feelings aren't strong enough to actually put up a fight either way. --Lethargy 02:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "The Church" (if starting a sentence), "the Church" or "the LDS Church" are all appropriate. I argue that "the church" is improper as "Church " is being used as a proper noun.  Bytebear 06:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with a capital C, but this should be applied to all restoration churches then. I, however, disagree with the use of LDS Church to specifically refer to the Utah organization because many churches claim to be the continuation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, not just the Utah organization.  Maybe L-dS is appropriate?  I am not sure.  Jcg5029 01:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with your suggestion is it would be WP:OR. the term "LDS Church" refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This usage is widespread and attributable. I understand why you disagree with it, but wikipedia content must be WP:Attributable. When people say "LDS Church" they mean The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You just have to accept that for wikipedia. Change the world first, then wikipeida will follow. McKay 15:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, McKay, take a chill pill. Still stands changing one means you have to capitalize them all.  Jcg5029 02:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think McKay misunderstood my point and took it personally, which was clearly not my intention. I think the letter C should be capitalized because it is a proper noun. My comments were in agreement with Bytebear. Many organizations will need this change both within and outside the restoration. Jcg5029 19:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think JCG misunderstood my point, and thought I was going crazy. He had two substantive points in his comment, one on capital 'C' and one on LDS. I didn't comment on his capital C comment, as I didn't have anything to add to the discussion in that matter. I did comment on his LDS comment, because it wasn't in line with wikipractices. McKay 19:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This issue was recently discussed at length HERE. The consensus was to retain "the church".

I don't think we should switch to "the Church" and favor continuance of "the church". Usually only two groups of people ever capitalize "the Church" when referring to their church--Catholics and Latter Day Saints. (Okay, maybe that's an overgeneralization.) One reason (not the only one) I believe it's unacceptable to do so in an encyclopedic content because it could have the unintended tendency to imply that the church being referred to is the one "true" church or the one church recognized by God, or the one true church in the Latter Day Saint movement, etc. I assume that's one of the reasons the LDS Church and the Catholic Church and other Latter Day Saint churches capitalize "church" in their own materials.

When referring to the "LDS Church" or "Mormon Church", capitalization is appropriate because it is part of a proper noun name, even though it refers to a proper noun. For e.g. When I say "the boy" I am referring to Billy specifically, but I don't use "the Boy" just because I am referring to Billy, which is a proper noun. Boy is a non-proper noun and it's never correct to capitalize. Same thing with "church"--when using just "the church" it would not be proper English usage to capitalize because it is not a proper noun. We don't capitalize non-proper nouns just because it "looks better" or because it is the subject of the article. Look in a print encyclopedia for an example of this proper usage. -SESmith 09:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So the reason for the 'C' for the Catholic Church is basically because it encompasses more than just one building, but the universal group of Catholics. Correct? I feel that for both the LDS Church and others like The Church of Jesus Christ – it is the same argument. For The Church of Jesus Christ – the (Capital C) Church refers to the entire group of members within The Church of Jesus Christ. I cannot speak for the LDS and other Latter Day Saint movement groups. It is not restricted to a place or person. The ‘C’ is meant to represent the entire organization in a shortened form of the real name. Like LDS Church for Latter-day Saints, or Church for the Catholic Church, it is the same argument for The Church of Jesus Christ.


 * I do not feel that others would read a statement like, ‘As a whole, the Church…’ and say wow this has a biased POV for one organization over another. I feel the real issue would be to capitalize the T in ‘The Church.’ I see no issues with ‘the Church as long as Wiki keeps it unified across the board. Jcg5029 20:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but on WP it has been agreed not to capitalize "Church" even when referring to the Catholic church. It's been a decision where there's been an attempt at universal application and that is another reason it's probably best not the rock the boat on the matter. -SESmith 23:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good deal. Jcg5029 00:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * I think I agree with you. I've been saying for a while that alot of WP's coverage is slanted towards the Utah LDS church. (without acknowledging other Latter Day Saint denominations) --Nerd42 (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * Doing a little browsing on CofChrist websites, I found this website that went over the history of the CofChrist's name change. It appears that at one time, they were considering the use of the word Saints as a descriptor, and the word Saints seems to be acceptable to everybody. I thought about Restoration Saints, which has a certain following. I also thought about Saintism, but that sounds too much like Satanism, and Websters says the word means "hypocritical pretense of holiness". And besides, we can't coin a new word out of whole cloth here. I think, to avoid using original research, there has to be some outside usage of a term before we can use it here. Any thoughts? Has anybody seen an instance of the term Restoration Saintism or something like it? Another idea is to refer, somehow, to Joseph Smith, as in Patriarch (Joseph Smith theology). Not sure what I think about that. CO GDEN  09:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is easier to characterize the Community of Christ today as an antithesis to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than it is to suggest extensive similarities that would constitute a common genus. Much of its early history as a movement apart from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was centered in anti-polygamy teachings. Even today, they state "The Community of Christ affirms its long history of vigorous opposition to polygamy as a doctrine or practice, regardless of what historical research may ultimately conclude about its origins in the early Latter Day Saint movement." They also espouse fundamentally different views on the trinity, which is the key test of orthodoxy for most Christians. Furthermore, the Community of Christ essentially rejects the historicity of the Book of Mormon, accepting it as metaphor with a message. But the message is even discussed critically, for example the apparent racism in the text. These differences make it untenable to suggest that there is any sort of common "movement" today that spans the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Community of Christ. I believe it is impossible to characterize them as part of a contemporary movement without violating WikePedia's NPOV policy and engaging in original research. The best approach is to treat them as completely seperate denominations, such as one would the Church of Christ (Campbellites) and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sure, you can point to early historical roots and mention both, but to try to classify them in a denominational grouping is no longer valid. Glenn4pr 06:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Apart from the situation today, I'm more interested, for example, in what to call Smith's doctrines and teachings circa the 1830s. Is it Mormonism? Apart from the question of whether the Book of Mormon is history or allegory (and many LDS accept it as Book of Job-like fiction as well), the question is, is it Mormonism? The churches went their seprate ways, of course, but they both still accept the authority of Joseph Smith as a prophet and apostle. So the question is, what do you call the doctrine that Joseph Smith taught before he died? If the Community of Christ has no problem with calling Smith's teachings and doctrine Mormonism, then that's great. It makes things easier. But from what I know about the denomination (which isn't really that much, frankly) I get the feeling they would oppose calling Smith's theology Mormonism. CO GDEN  09:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A case could be made for following the convention of Lutheranism, Calvinism and Wesleyanism, by calling it Smithism. The problem is that the Community of Christ denomination has gone a long way to dissociate itself from Smith and especially the Book of Mormon. For example, the CofChrist missionary tracts mention Smith's vision, but not the Book of Mormon. I do not believe the Community of Christ considers Smith to have been an "apostle" and even if they did, they attach no impportance to the term. Officially, they say "we can genuinely affirm the prophetic vision of Joseph Smith Jr., while acknowledging the fallibility present in his life and in the lives of all prophetic leaders." The CofC has peeled back the onion on Joseph Smith as far as they possibly can to his first vision experience.


 * Glenn's statements about CofC being an antithesis to LDS, and about the Book of Mormon reflect either his own views, or his opinions of others' views. They are not the stated positions of the CofC. Of course the many denominations coming out of the Mormon tradition have different beliefs, doctrines, and practices—that is why the schisms happened in the first place. The organization of the articles under the banner Mormonism is historical, not contemporary.  I think it remains the best compromise.  The CofC did experiment in the 1970s with using The Saint's Church as a nickname, but it was dropped after it was realized that to outsiders it sounded like a term of aggrandizement.  J.J. Strang's group suggests calling themselves "Great Lakes Mormons" as contrasted with "Rocky Mountain Mormons" (and presumably "Prairie Mormons" or "Missouri Mormons") as geographical distinctions, so they don't seem to have a problem with it. Probably many members of the CofC would feel uncomfortable being called Mormons because of the term's close association with the LDS church, but they embrace their "Mormon" beginnings with J Smith jr. nonetheless. (And they still have that Book of Mormon on the shelf.) --Blainster 22:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The statements from the Community of Christ website are fairly official: "Our faith is grounded in the gospel of Jesus Christ and not in the actions of any particular person. ... As a policy, the Community of Christ does not legislate or mandate positions on issues of history. We place confidence in sound historical methodology as it relates to our church story. We believe that historians and other researchers should be free to come to whatever conclusions they feel are appropriate after careful consideration of documents and artifacts to which they have access. We benefit greatly from the significant contributions of the historical discipline." Keep in mind that the historians being praised were paid employees of the Community of Christ and had developed strong cases against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Virtually all members of the Community of Christ reject the label "Mormon."

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * I think what everyone is in essence stumbling over here is the fact that we are trying to find common terms for different groups that really don't want to associate with each other. Essentially the problem is that even though the "Restoration" (I like that term) groups share 14 years of common history they have another 160 years of seperate history in which they have tried to disassociate themselves from each other.  As a member of a restoration group church, I have my own feelings about terms such as mormonism (hate), latter day saint (hate), and other terms because I feel they don't apply to my church or my beliefs.  It may not be NPOV but with religion NPOV becomes very tricky.  I think the authority on what terms to use with what church's lies with the church's themselves.  However tedious it may seem I think it is important to respect each individual chutch's decision on what they like to use.  I don't think we will ever come to a complete concensus on the terms.  Instead maybe there should be clarifications in the pages for the specific church as to what terms they prefer.  Either way I def think that we need to respect each church independently no matter how small or big.  Does think sound ridiculous?
 * JRN 16:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm okay with using the terms that the individual churchs use themselves, but what about when there's a conflict? Both the cutlerite church and the church that has its headquarters in monongahela pennsylvania refer to themselves as The Church of Jesus Christ. As well as about 20 other churches that go by that name (some with a capital "t" others lower case). Last November The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had as the cover story for it's Ensign cover story "Welcome to the Church of Jesus Christ". So what do we do in cases of conflict? Shouldn't we follow traditional WP:D policies? McKay 14:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In regard to the Cutlerites and The Church of Jesus Christ and JRN's comment the Cutlerites use that term to separate themselves as a much smaller group in a nonoffensive manner. I don't think the comments sound rediculous at all.Jcg5029 23:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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


 * I think the naming conventions definitely need a reworking. I've updated the Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) with what I think are becoming the de facto best practices, but the Naming conventions (Latter Day Saint) are a bit confusing. The conventions currently suggest the parenthetical (LDS Church), but I wonder whether (Latter-day Saint) (or (Latter-day Saints)) might be better. We just haven't yet really had articles that needed the very-specific parenthetical. I'm also torn between (Latter Day Saint) and (Latter Day Saints) as parentheticals. In many situations, such as the name of the above Manual of Style, the parenthetical (Latter Day Saint) seems strange, as if the Manual itself were a Latter Day Saint. Do you have a good reason, Visorstuff, to favor the singular form?  CO GD EN  22:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the plural (Latter Day Saints) should rule over the singular form (Latter Day Saint). I completely agree with you on that, and will suppport it fully. It is the style used by the associated press as they talk abou "other Latter Day Saints churches," but I'm not so sure of Latter-day Saints over Latter-day Saint. I'm undecided on that one. My reasoning is that you may be talking about the "Latter-day Saint Church" as it is referred to in historical documents. Its not referred to in the plural in historical documents. I need more time to noodle that one before making my decision on what I prefer. Thoughts to persuade me? -Visorstuff 23:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For the specific church-based parenthetical, maybe we should stick with (LDS Church) as it is now in the naming conventions. Of course, I still haven't seen an article where I think the parenthetical is justified.  CO GD EN  18:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ (the one that has it's headquarters in monongahela pennsylvania)
There have been changes on this page with regards to the aforementioned church. Was consensus determined on this issue? It's an issue I'm bringing up on it's talk page (currently located at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ), specifically under the very long "name" section. I thought that the place to resolve the issue first would be there. Anyone's input would be greatly appreciated. McKay 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, can I put a Template:disputed tag or something on the top. I think that this issue needs to be resolved, and shouldn't be used as reference for this issue. McKay 22:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Found Template:disputable. note that a discussion on the location of the page is going on at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ. I think that should be resolved before we decide what to do with this page. McKay 22:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, the official name is following this own pages guidlines which are not currently under dispute. No consensus on the tag thus no tag should be applied.Jcg5029 16:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are under dispute. I'm disputing this guideline! It does not take consensus to add a disputed tag. I'm not disputing the name of the church, I'm disputing how the church should be referenced in wikipedia. Do not remove the disputed tag unless the disputation has been resolved. McKay 17:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The tag is for disputing the factual accuracy of a statement. It is not disputable that the church is called "The Church of Jesus Christ". It is not disputable that is the official name of the church. It is not disputable that it is the legal name of the church, since it is the publicly registered corporate name. Since it cannot be reasonably disputed that the church is called by that name, including officially and legally, the tag is inappropriate. Vassyana 21:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * partially, this discussion is occuring at the talk page for said church. We would very much appreciate your input there.
 * Clarification: Note that I didn't put it in the left column, under the name of the church, but in the right column, under ow the articles should be referenced. I personally don't think that said church should be referred to in wikipedia as "The Church of Jesus Christ" beacuse that term means too many other things, I think there should be some designator.
 * The tag is intended to be used for the factual accuracy of a statement. I think it's clear that what the church should be called in wikipedia is under dispute. I don't mean to say that that's not what the Church's name is, but this current page is in the Wikipedia namespace, so saying that (The Church of Jesus Christ) should be used to designate all articles referring to the church with headquarters in Monongahelea is not only against wikipedia policy, it's not what's being used currently. So in a sense, there is a factual accuracy, because this page isn't how Wikipedia Policy is being executed, and there is a disagreement about what wikipedia policy should be. I felt like I was using the spirit of the tag. What tag do you think should be used. I could create a new tag if you like. McKay 22:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tags are not appropriate. It is under discussion. If the discussion resolves that the convention should be changed, then the page can be changed. Until consensus resolves to change it, the page should reflect current conventions. Vassyana 23:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

if you find a tag that is actually relevant. the 'spirit' in which you do something is a POV issue.Jcg5029 22:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed section on naming articles on church leaders
I've added a proposal section on naming biographies of church leaders. It's straightforward, except for the part about using (Mormon) as a disambiguator for LDS Church leaders. I think this is a good idea, because we currently have a few articles such as John Taylor (1808-1887) and John W. Taylor (1858-1916) that are named using ugly dates that say nothing about who the person is. This kind of naming, as I understand current Wikipedia policy, is for use in disambiguating only as a last resort. Therefore, I'm proposing the use of (Mormon) in these kind of cases. Therefore, the John Taylor article would be John Taylor (Mormon). Any comments?  CO GD EN  21:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I don't like the idea of dates being used for disambiguity, mainly because I would rather see John Doe (Inventor) and John Doe (Politician) than John Doe (1868-1902) and John Doe (1845-1890).  It doesn't help the reader with the disambiguity.  Also why use (Mormon) when the naming convention is (Latter Day Saints)? Bytebear 03:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think COGDEN was saying he is against using dates, not in favor of it. Using -(Mormon)—as COGDEN proposed—seemed to be working fine and gaining wide acceptance and use until the recent changes to John Taylor and John W. Taylor articles. I think using the (LDS Church) disambiguation for biographies doesn't work as well as using (Mormon). A person is not an "LDS Church"; the person is a "Mormon". Can we at least keep things with (Mormon) until some sort of consensus develops as to what to do? Rich Uncle Skeleton 06:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But why use (Mormon) when it is a term that not all Latter Day Saint groups like (e.g. Community of Christ). It should be (Latter Day Saints) for general or (LDS Church) for specific to that denom., just like every other article.  (Mormon) should be avoided.  Bytebear 23:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(Mormon) is only used for members of the LDS Church under the current policy. Otherwise (Lattter Day Saints) may be used. I agree with your position except that (Mormon) should be used instead of (LDS Church) for biographical articles, because people are Mormons and not LDS Churches. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. Well said. "Latter Day Saint" is our conventions-approved term for members of non-specified dominations in the Latter Day Saint movement, but general Wikipedia naming principles say that we should use the most commonly-understood term. "Mormon" undoubtedly beats "Latter Day Saint" when it comes to understandability. Also, "Latter Day Saint" is frequently edited to "Latter-day Saint" in every article where we use it. We might have to move protect these pages; I think fighting common usage when we don't have to is a recipe for wasted overhead. We'll just have to figure something else out for others associated with groups such as the Community of Christ.


 * All things considered, I think COGDEN was right to pick "Mormon." Cool Hand Luke 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Using the parenthetical (LDS Church) or (Latter Day Saints) makes sense with topics, but doesn't make sense with people. The term Mormon wouldn't necessarily apply to anyone outside the LDS Church, but if someone's primary claim to notability is because they are a Mormon, I don't think they would object to the term being used in a parenthetical. For example, there's no real controversy that John Taylor can be categorized as a Mormon. He wouldn't have found that offensive, and I don't think any current member of the LDS Church would find that offensive. What to do about someone else, like a member of the Community of Christ, is a different story, and I think that can be left to the normal disambiguation rules applicable to any other bio article. CO GDEN  01:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

At any rate "LDS Church" does not work for individuals; it runs counter to how disambiguation works. The parenthetical is supposed to describe the subject (which can work for LDS Church-specific practices, but not for people&mdash;It would perhaps be like using "Islam" instead of "Muslim" for people). If we really want to go this route, I suggest "LDS Church leader" or "LDS Church member," as appropriate. Cool Hand Luke 03:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-correcting note: Actually, we should never have to disambiguate with "LDS Church member." Unless they are a notable "LDS Church leader," "critic," "historian," or something similar, we would never disambiguate them based on religious affiliation&mdash;they would be notable for other things. It would be ludicrous, as a hypothetical, to disambiguate Brandon Flowers with "(LDS Church member)" or anything similar. We will only need to disambiguate people with notable LDS Church relationships this way. Cool Hand Luke 03:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason I like (Mormon) is that it works well for LDS Church leaders and non-leaders alike. What I mean is this—what if a member of the LDS Church was not a leader of the church per se but their notability stems from their work or affiliation with the church? This may not be a perfect example, but I'm thinking of someone like Dan Jones (Mormon). Using Dan Jones (LDS Church leader) wouldn't quite be right, but "Mormon" works well. It could be Dan Jones (LDS Church missionary), but he was notable for things other than his church missionary work. Possibly you could make the same sorts of arguments for John Jaques (Mormon). -(Mormon) just seems like such a good all-purpose disambiguator for LDS Church leaders, missionaries, pioneers, official historians, etc. when the notability stems from affiliation with the LDS Church, in whatever form. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * From the Wikipedia article Mormon:
 * The term most often refers to a member of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), which is commonly called the Mormon Church. The LDS Church believes that "Mormon" may only properly be applied to its members, but the term is occasionally used more broadly to describe any individual or group that claims belief in the Book of Mormon, including other Latter Day Saint groups.
 * From Manual_of_Style_%28Latter_Day_Saints%29:
 * Use of the term Mormon: 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.
 * For LDS Church specific articles, (LDS Church) should be used and not (Mormon), for general articles about "Mormonism", (Latter Day Saints) is recommended, however, I can see for a person (Latter Day Saint), or (Latter Day Saint movement) might be more fitting. So Dan Jones (LDS Church) is the preferred title. Bytebear 01:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But Dan Jones is not an "LDS Church". Your choice of disambiguation is nonsensical. If we only use "Mormon" to refer to LDS Church people, no offence will be caused. Do you understand the difference between an LDS Church member and a CofC member, or are we miscommunicating some other way? Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, rather than (LDS Church), how about (Latter-day Saint). That fits the naming convention.  I think it is more appropriate anyway.  Good call.  and for a general non-Demominational person (Latter Day Saint), but how would you define someone from the Community of Christ, ie. Joseph Smith III (Community of Christ)?  He is not a community.   But what are they called?  Now you have a quandry.  Bytebear 02:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you have a quandry. Use (Mormon) for LDS Church members, and (Latter Day Saint) for members of other Latter Day Saint denominations—as is currently done—and you avoid these problems altogether. I think these issues were thought out by the people that proposed and implemented (Mormon). Too much confusion could result from the use of the different disambiguators (Latter-day Saint) and (Latter Day Saint). They are too similar to represent a meaningful disambiguation between the two. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is confusing, which is why LDS Church was suggested instead of Latter-day Saint to keep things a bit more separate.
 * Here is my reasoning for not using "Mormon":
 * it is not specific enough
 * it is offensive to some groups
 * the naming conventions for all other articles say do not use "Mormon", because they have already hashed out this issue.
 * I am open to proposals, but (Mormon) is not an option. Here is my suggestion:
 * (Latter Day Saint) for general non-Denominations.
 * (Latter-day Saint) or (LDS Church leader) for LDS Church members
 * (Community of Christ) or (Community of Christ leader) for the CofC
 * Alternatively
 * (LDS Church ) i.e John Doe (LDS Church missionary)

Other examples:
 * (Latter Day Saint apostle), (Community of Christ prophet), (FLDS Church leader)
 * Comments? Bytebear 02:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think general Wikipedia naming principle trump the points against "Mormon." Those sentence in the article Mormon exists almost exclusively because of Mormon fundamentalists (and perhaps Strangites)&mdash;Community of Christ and most other non-Brigham Young groups have never used the term; I don't think confusion is a big concern. Indeed the reason we disambiguate topics using "(Latter Day Saint)" instead of "(Mormonism)" is because the latter is too LDS Church-specific. Weighing against this ambiguity concern is the cardinal rule of naming articles on Wikipedia: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." "(Mormon)" wins hands down. Failing this solution, I would go with "(LDS Church )", which best accomplishes what parenthetical disambiguation is meant to accomplish&mdash;distinguishing the subject from other like-named subjects. Cool Hand Luke 18:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If we stick with ( } that works for all denominations equally.  So we have (LDS Church prophet) and (Community of Christ prophet) or even (Latter Day Saint leader) for those who are before the succession crisis.  And it fits with the existing naming conventions for Latter Day Saint articles. Bytebear 22:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Put that way, I think that "( }" may be the best solution. Although it is not the most widely understood term, it has the advantage of consistency, which I like. Also, only pre-1843 figures will be given the oft-confusing and intentionally ambiguous label "Latter Day Saint". That's appropriate. Cool Hand Luke 22:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think Mormon wins on recognizability, but I can support this denomination-specific proposal if we can also agree to some guidelines of common terms to use in the space. For a denomination's church president, would we use, , or ? Do we use or ? , , or ? , , or ? , , or something else? I support using as the catch-all default unless the person was fairly clearly not a leader, in which case we might want to question if using the church disambiguator is appropriate in the first place. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a tough one, but I agree that "leader" is most appropriate for many cases. I am thinking of one case in particular:  do we say "John Taylor (LDS Church president)" or John Taylor (Latter Day Saint leader)".  I think the former is more accurate to his prominance, but it could be challenged.  I also think it depends on how the denomination uses their own terms.  For example:  (LDS Church president) is appropriate, but (FLDS Church prophet) is probably appropriate too, even though both roles are the same. Bytebear 22:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I imagine "leader" would be appropriate for all LDS apostles and presidents; it's sufficient to disambiguate the person in most cases and captures a longer span of their lives. Other titles should be fairly rare and can be decided on a case-by-case basis, but I think things like "womens' leader", "historian", and "general authority" all sound appropriate for lesser titles. Cool Hand Luke 05:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's let some time pass so others can chime in and then we can write up the standard. I will update the proposed standard and you can tell me what you think.  Bytebear 05:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Revisit

 * I'm not convinced this is the best road we should be going down, at least when we are disambiguating members of the LDS Church. No member of the LDS Church will be offended by calling a member a Mormon. That's the most recognizable term, and the simplest. I'm worried that we're heading down a path of having a complicated system of parentheticals like (LDS Church musical conductor), (LDS Church presiding bishop second counselor), etc., and that this is just instruction creep. Plus, what about Mormons who have had multiple roles. This is likely to lead to confusion. If we had to disambiguate Elijah Abel, would we use Elijah Abel (LDS Church black man), or Elijah Abel (LDS Church member of the Third Quorum of Seventy), or Elijah Abel (LDS Church black priesthood holder), or what?


 * For LDS Church members, why don't we just use the parenthetical (Mormon), and for all other Latter Day Saints, including the FLDS and those who left the church pre-1844, we can use (Latter Day Saint). Parentheticals only have to be specific enough to disambiguate them from other articles. They don't have to define their role. CO GDEN  23:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, Elijah Abel isn't disambiguous, along with all of your other examples. Really we are talking about John Taylor, and I think it is more confusing to have John Taylor (Mormon) and John W. Taylor (Mormon) than having John Taylor (LDS Church president) and John W. Taylor (LDS Church apostle).  The former is still ambiguous, whereas the latter is more clear. Bytebear 23:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In the case of John Taylor (Mormon), he would be a notable Mormon even if he were not church president. He was also a notable apostle, missionary, polygamist, theologian, and pioneer. John W. Taylor (Mormon) was most notably an apostle, but he was also notable as a Mormon apostate and fundamentalist. I think Mormon is as good a disambiguator as any, and it's short and simple, and the rule is easily applied to other notable Mormons. CO GDEN  18:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But you're making a proposal that would apply to all future and present disambiguations in this area, not just the John Taylor issue. Thus, I think COGDEN's points are valid, and I essentially agree with what he said. I still maintain that for members of the LDS Church, "-(Mormon)" is simple, accurate, non-offensive, and widely applicable across positions, whether the person is a pioneer, church president, apostle, historian, bishop, etc. It just makes sense to use. Any other denomination can use "-(Latter Day Saints)", essentially for the same reasons. We don't want this to get too complicated for new users to figure out. Reading your proposal as it stands now still confuses me, and I've been thinking about this and participating in the discussion. Imagine what a user unfamiliar with all the LDS terminology must think! Let's keep it simple. "Mormon" is simple.


 * Is your real concern here the use of "Mormon"? If so, why are you so against the term as a descriptor of persons who are in the LDS Church, if, as COGDEN asserts, most LDS Church members would accept the term? Would we really want use the disambiguation -(LDS Church pioneer) instead of -(Mormon pioneer) or just -(Mormon)? "Mormon" is not a bad word and I see no reason to avoid it when dealing with someone who is exclusively a member of the LDS Church. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My concern is two-fold. First, it completely contradicts the current naming convention on all LDS related articles (LDS meaing all groups).  Second, the reason those naming conventions exists is because the term "Mormon" is not as simple as you make it.  There was a lot of discussion before deciding on the current naming convention, and I feel this change will be a step backward on those decisions. Bytebear 02:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not side-step the discussion by falling back on past discussions/decisions. They may or may not have been good decisions—especially if they have tended to complicate rather than simplify the rules. I just have 2 questions, mainly, or rather a question with 2 branches: Do you or do you not think "Mormon" is an appropriate term for someone who identifies as a member of the LDS Church? If yes, what is the problem with using it as a disambiguator for such people if it is limited to people whose notability is connected with the LDS Church? If no, why not? (and how do you square your reasoning with the LDS Church's use of the term, as in its website mormon.org, "Mormon Tab Choir", "Mormon pioneers", GBHinckley's talk about his warm acceptance of the term, etc. From my understanding, the LDS Church is OK with the term being used to refer to people, they just don't like the church called the "Mormon Church".) Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: I don't see why you think John Taylor (Mormon) is at all ambiguous. I don't know of any other prominent member of the LDS Church who has gone by the name "John Taylor". Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * John W. Taylor (Mormon) was an apostle, and the son of the prophet John Taylor. So there is some ambiguity there.
 * As to your question, yes, the LDS Church has claimed exclusivity to the term "Mormon", but that is not universally accepted outside the church. The LDS Church denies the term "Fundamental Mormon" because they say that they are not Mormons in the first place, but media outlets and those groups themselves disagree.  So the term Mormon is not used exclusive to the LDS Church.  and that is where the issue comes about.  Wikipedia has thus far agreed that the term Mormon should be used when appropriate to the issue, but not as a blanket term to describe the LDS Church.  This is because FLDS folks or other Latter Day Saint denominations may take claim to the term as well, so you could, in theory, say Warren Jeffs (Mormon) and it would technically be correct, even if the LDS Church disagrees.  Also, the LDS Church prefers the term LDS Church over Mormon church (as it is Christ's Church and not Mormon's), and in their own manual of style, they say never to use the term Mormon other than to describe such things as the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Mormon Pioneers, etc.  So to say "LDS Church leader" over "Mormon Leader" is actually in compliance with the naming conventions of the LDS Church.
 * So, rather than using such a broad term, the solution was to use "Latter Day Saint" or "Latter Day Saint movement" to describe the more broad scope, and "LDS Church", "Community of Christ", "FLDS Church", etc., to descibe the specific denomination. I think it also helps with disambuity in the case of the two John Taylors to have the disambiguity of role defined in their title.  This is my reasoning for using the current Wikipedia standard for naming of "Mormon" related articles, and it has worked well thus far.  I really think reintroducing the term "Mormon" into the naming convention is a step backward in this logic, and will cause more confusion than less. Bytebear 19:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't use the disambiguator (Mormon) to refer to fundamentalist Mormons like Warren Jeffs. A good solution for that would be something like Warren Jeffs (fundamentalist Mormon), a term he himself would embrace, is well-defined, and which distinguishes him from LDS Mormons. Many LDS disagree with calling fundamentalist Mormons by their self-identifying name, but we don't really need to decide that issue now. We can treat the FLDS on a case-by-case basis until we figure out what the consensus is.
 * As to official LDS naming preference, it's true that the church doesn't like to be called the "Mormon Church", but the church is okay with its members being referred to as "Mormons". CO GDEN  18:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you explanations. (I thought the "W." in the name "John W. Taylor" served as the disambiguator, both in and out of the church.) Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the "W." is good enough to distinguish the president John Taylor from his son. It's good enough for the George Bushes. CO GDEN  18:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise this was such a controversial issue—is this a case of just one editor not liking the current standard or is there any substantial amount of support for a change. Personally, I am fine with the use of "-(Mormon)" in the case of a member of the LDS Church, essentially for the same reasons as outlined above by others. It's flexible, descriptive, clear, etc. Snocrates 00:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Small Denomination Disambiguations
There have been no shortage of dispute concerning naming of smaller organizations within the Latter Day Saint movement. Most of these directed towards The Church of Jesus Christ, whose headquarters are in Pennsylvania. I would like to recommend a new standard - and reiterate some old ones - for disambiguating the many similar names found in the Latter Day Saint movement. I would like to hear what everybody thinks.

1) The full name of the organization in question should be used. No matter the disambig that follows, the full name should be included so members of the organization and those closely associated can actually find their own page.

2) Common, unoffensive terms to disambiguate.

3) No longer using term 'ites' to disambiguate a church organization. The most specific issue I can think of is last name of an early founder of a group with 'ites' added at the end.  Cutlerites, Strangites, and Bickertonites are just a few.  I suggest the these, often quite common and historically used terms, become redirects to the pages themselves.  I will draw from two sources for these new ideas.


 * []
 * []

When I read the term 'ites' located center stage at the main article, I don't think of a church or anything neutral -- I think more of something cultish. Now with that being said I do NOT feel any of these organizations are anything short of wonderful churches, so please do not misread that statement. With these thoughts I suggest...

- have 'ites' page as a redirect either to the full name of the man who organized the specific church, or another commonly used term to refer to the organization. Yes, these terms sometimes are common use both to membership and historians alike, but in viewing how the John Whitmer Historical Association referred to the churches (see attachments) I think they got it right. It is neutral, respectful, and disambiguates the groups.

What does everybody think? Jcg5029 20:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me, except I'm not totally sure about the "-ites" issue. For "Bickertonites", certainly. But the "Cutlerites" and "Strangites" seem to be okay with those terms, and use them themselves. I'd rather not invent parentheticals when the commonly-used ones aren't controversial. Every other point, though, I totally agree. CO GDEN  22:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the "-ites" issue. I do not see any sources that suggest that this terminology is objectively offensive, and they're in such wide usage it would seem foolish for WP to reinvent the wheel by doing away with these and replacing them with something else. (By "objectively offensive", I mean that knowledgeable, neutral and uninvolved observers would agree that the term in question is offensive. No one has pointed to any such sources regarding any of the "-ites" terms. I realize members of the Bickertonite organization feel offended by the usage of the "-ite" term that applies to them, but from what I understand this is based largely upon a theological argument that it is Christ's church and thus should not be described by the name of a man. This is not a sufficient reason to not use the term in WP, especially as a redirect term.) I agree that proper names of organizations should always be used, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with including explanatory disambiguators in parenthesis. The use of "-ites" as disambiguators is traditional in the Latter Day Saint movement, probably because of the use of "-ites" in the Book of Mormon. With so many denominations and sects using names that are sometimes maddenly similar, the "-ites" are helpful to the uninitiated and the initiated alike. If anything, WP should be going in the opposite direction and providing disamiguations in parentheses to many of the LDS-themed articles with ambiguous titles. Snocrates 00:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: New (Mormonism) parenthetical for special cases
It's been a while since I (or anyone, apparently), as reviewed this convention, but I've been thinking that there may be some cases in which the parenthetical (Mormonism) is more appropriate than either (Latter Day Saints) or (LDS Church). Articles within that category might include the present Exaltation (LDS Church), which really applies not just to the LDS Church, but all of Mormonism including Mormon fundamentalism, which shares essentially the same beliefs. Similarly, Godhead (Latter Day Saints) really only applies to Mormonism, and not the Latter Day Saint movement as a whole--specifically, not the Community of Christ. I don't believe the CoC even really uses the word Godhead as a synonym for the Trinity. Other examples of articles that might be subject to this change include Endowment (Latter Day Saints), Sealing (Latter Day Saints), Rebaptism (Latter Day Saints), Penalty (Latter Day Saints), and Pearl of Great Price (Latter Day Saints). CO GDEN  08:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (Belated) support. It would indeed be more appropriate for some articles that apply to the LDS Church+Mormon fundamentalists only. It might be a bit tricky to determine in some situations whether "Mormonism" or "Latter Day Saints" should be used, but we can always default to "Latter Day Saints" in cases of doubt and reserve "Mormonism" for clear-cut situations like those mentioned above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It sounds almost like you are defining Mormonism as a "Rocky Mountain Saint" definition as opposed to a "Prarie Saint" denomination.  I think that might be a fair way to distinguish articles that only apply to a faction of the Latter Day Saint movement. Bytebear (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since it's been several months, and nobody has expressed an opinion otherwise, I'm going to make the change. I also want to convert Heavenly Mother (Latter Day Saints) as well. CO GDEN  01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

after all this discussion, I was right after all
It looks like you guys have basically adopted the standard I proposed back in 2006 as User:BenMcLean/naming after all. --BenMcLean (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I guess so. CO GDEN  01:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

LDS Church style guide
I haven't seen any reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' style guide, which should probably at least be a consideration in establishing Wikipedia policy. --Cilencia (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been discussed before; we haven't adopted its suggestions because almost no independent organisation has. The Deseret News, which is owned by the LDS Church, doesn't even follow it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I never noticed that before. I went to the Deseret News website and found several references to the term "Mormon Church". I even found a reference to "Mormon Church" in the LDS Church News (see this article). That's interesting. I also found a Deseret News article that referred to "fundamentalist Mormons", even though LDS Church argues they do not exist. CO GDEN  06:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the style guide came out right before the 2002 Olympics in SLC. It didn't really catch on with anybody. I'm not sure that the church really promotes it anymore. If they're not even enforcing it within the Church News, it can't be much of a priority anymore. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(Mormon) as a parenthetical for people
The discussion above has gone stale, but I'm not sure there was closure on the existing guideline, which for over two years has said that people like President John Taylor should be disambiguated with the parenthetical "(Mormon)". Currently, Taylor is not designated this way, and I want to change him back, as well as any other biographical articles I come across. Is this settled policy? I think that most Mormon leaders are now designated "(Mormon)" anyway, except for Taylor. CO GDEN  01:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw your note on Talk:John Taylor (Latter Day Saints). Not an objection, but a support and an observation. As far as I can see, (Mormon) is used when the person's primary notability comes from activities in the LDS (Utah-based) Church. (Latter Day Saints) still seems to be used for non-LDS Church people and people whose primary notability comes from activities prior to the 1847 Mormon exodus and the formal (re?)creation of the LDS Church under Utah law. I'm thinking of William Law (Latter Day Saints) and Samuel H. Smith (Latter Day Saints), for example. I'm not sure if we should switch them all to (Mormon) (like you, I'm very unclear about the exact status and meaning of the disambiguation conventions), but for John Taylor at least I think it probably should be changed, even though he did do some notable things in the movement prior to the Mormon exodus, as president of the LDS Church he seems to fit squarely into when we could use "Mormon". Do you think there would be a problem just changing all the pre-exodus ones to "Mormon" too, for the sake of simplicity and consistency? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about non-Brighamite people. William Smith (Latter Day Saints) would be another example. I think we might want to think about changing these to (Latter Day Saint), but we can discuss that separately. I think at the very least, people like John Taylor should be designated as (Mormon). CO GDEN  04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For Brighamites, I would agree that it's appropriate. We can work out the others later. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want to revive the drawn-out debates on "Mormon" versus "Latter Day Saint" (2003, 2006, 2007, etc), but the naming convention for some categories and disambiguation parentheticals is unclear to me. In my mind "Mormon" doesn't exactly equate to the LDS Church, Brighamites, and/or fundamentalists.  I believe it has also been used in (1) the original church and (2) by sects outside of the Rocky Mountain Saints.
 * 1. Original church:' Wasn't the term "Mormon" (or "Mormonite") initially used during the 1830s by observers and outsiders as an epithet, and didn't Joseph Smith adopt the term in a shrewd attempt to nullify its derision?  How early do we find followers of Joseph Smith or followers of the Book of Mormon self-identifying as "Mormons"?  Wasn't John Taylor a "Mormon" before 1844?
 * 2. Non-Brighamites: While I understand that many denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement do not use the term "Mormon", though I'm no authority, I believe I've seen it in historical use.  I often think of R. C. Evans calling his former RLDS faith "the Mormon Church".  I also recollect reading about obscure historical sites of non-Brighamites that had local names something like "Mormon Creek" or "Mormon Village".  I'll have to check for sources, but I'd love for somebody authoritative to address historical usage of "Mormon" for non-Brighamites.  Was it slander or slang applied by outsiders or only in very rare use for non-Brighamites?
 * My point is that I don't associate the term "Mormon" uniquely with the Utah-based LDS Church, despite the church's efforts to maintain control over its "brand" and modern rejection by non-Brighamites. I don't advocate pre-1844 article changes from "Latter Day Saints" to "Mormon", since both seem valid, but I also don't think it is incorrect to call Hyrum Smith a Mormon.  If "Mormon" is a more broad term, do we acknowledge it while maintaining the existing WP convention (Mormon==LDS Church) to maintain order?  ——Rich jj (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the terms Mormon and Mormonism also apply to early pre-1844 Saints, and the term is in common academic use for that purpose. For non-Brighamites, however, I think the main issue is that for at least the Community of Christ, the term is considered almost derogatory, mainly because it implies polygamy. The term has been used sometimes in the literature to apply to the Community of Christ, but mostly in older literature, as far as I am aware. I don't think anyone would really consider the term Mormon properly applied to the Community of Christ today. I think the term "Latter Day Saints" is more appropriately applied to topics relating both to the LDS Church and to the Community of Christ. For anything that applies exclusively to early Mormonism, or applies to both early Mormonism and the LDS Church, I would say the term Mormonism is probably appropriate. I would tend to favor the term "Mormonism" wherever possible, given that the term is a single word and is better known. Also, Mormon theology is much more distinctive than Community of Christ theology, which shares much more of its theology with mainstream Christianity. For some topics, the Community of Christ perspective is simply the traditional Christian perspective, and no separate article is needed. In that case, we only need a "Mormonism" article. CO GDEN  07:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Categorisation
I have recently created several articles relating to film in the LDS Church. While I could categorise these items under the catch-all "Latter Day Saint" categories, it seems more appropriate that I specify that this is a "Latter-day Saint" film or person. That being said, I'd appreciate it if someone more familiar with the categorisation scheme branch that down. This is particularly useful for films that are a product of the LDS Church culture and members of the LDS Church. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 21:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming church leaders
The "Naming church leaders" section currently says: In general, church leaders should be named in accordance with Naming conventions (people).  It would seem reasonable to add the following, just to be completely clear:  Titles such as "President", "Elder", "Brother", or "Sister" should generally not be used with names.  Comments? Rich wales (talk · contribs) 19:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the principle, but I don't know of any example where someone has tried this. I don't really oppose, but my inclination is not to overspecify. CO GDEN  07:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Where did "Prarie Saint" come from and what's wrong with "Brighamite" ?
Two terms that I really don't understand why/how they're being used the way they are. First, "Prarie Saint" and "Rocky Mountain Saint" - where did this naming convention come from? I have only heard of it from Wikipedia and nowhere else. Second, I have heard that the Utah Mormons object to the term "Brighamite" but I don't understand exactly what it is that they find objectionable about this term. Other Latter Day Saint factions like the Hedrickites, the Strangites, the Larsenites and the Josephites like me don't seem to object to these designations as far as I know - it seems to be only the Utah Mormons who take exception to being called after their second succeeding prophet. I would be very interested if anyone could answer these questions --BenMcLean (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against Brighamite, and it's certainly less wordy than "Rocky Mountain Saint". I don't have a strong opinion either way, though. I think the latter usage stems from some book or journal article, but I'm not sure which one. CO GDEN  23:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment
I think LDS religious beliefs could be described as "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)." To point out some minutia that folks unfamiliar with specifically LDS terminology might not know about: As a sidenote, read the comments below this small town newspaper article about a local candidate who happens to be Mormon. The town, Mesquite, Nevada, is a miniscule resort town that is now 6.23% Mormon but had been approximately 100% Latter-day Saint a generation ago when it was a farming town. Every single commenter writes "LDS" instead of Mormon in the commentary thread, whether their viewpoint is essentially pro-LDS or vaguely (or not-so-vaguely) anti-LDS. Why? I don't know but it could it be for the same reason that in the early part of the twentieth century people would more "delicately" say such things as "Hebrew" instead of the more generally understood "Jew," or "colored" instead of "Negro," in the parlance of the time. (Actually, after the term LDS has been used hundreds of times in the thread, the last post has a single use of Mormon when a commenter says, "I'm not a Mormon but...." The only other instance of the term's being used is when one commenter literally puts it in quotation marks: "...you have obviously never meet a real 'Mormon' if you are doubting for one second their patriotism!" Lol.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The Missouri-based Community of Christ does not call its members Mormon (althought they believe them to be, technically, "Latter Day Saints"--still, they downplay the Latter Day Saint designation these days...).
 * 2) Per the style guide at Newsroom.LDS.org/Style, the Utah-based LDS Church prefers that NO nickname be used for its church, at least in print (which include "the LDS Church" or "the Mormon Church")--after initial use of the church's full name, the CoJCoLDS, they want to be called "the church."
 * 3) Ironcially, even the LDS themselves verbally call their church "the LDS Church" or "the Mormon Church" for short
 * 4) The LDS Church prefers that their members be called Latter-day Saints but don't mind their being called Mormon in print
 * 5) Despite its dislike of any nicknames for the church, in headlines especially, even the LDS Church-owned Deseret News uses the initialism LDS to refer to it--"adjectively," we suppose? --in that it's simply shorter and useful for that purpose, we guess.
 * 6) There is also LDS Family Services, the weekly LDS Church News (an official news publication of the LDS Church), LDS Business College, LDS Student Association, etc. etc. etc.
 * 7) (also Mormon trail, Mormon pioneers, Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the daily Mormon Times (an unofficial publication for and about Mormons that happens to be owned by the LDS Church [Note: the LDS Church also owns the conservative Deseret News and the liberal Salt Lake Tribune, however the latter's editorial staff is especially independent from the church]), the Mormon Battalion (used in the mid-19th C. U.S. War with Mexico), Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Mormon studies (which is akin to Judaic studies or Adventist studies or Catholic studies), etc. etc. etc.
 * 8) The LDS Church indeed tries to monopolize the term "Mormon" only to itself.
 * 9) The above point being said: This attempted monopolization may or may not be completely fair but it is also reflected in common speech. Mormon means member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Mormon fundamentalist means one of the perhaps 70,000 people who believe it good to practice polygamy currently; New Order Mormon means someone who belongs to a certain faction of essentially humanistic or agnostic LDS Church members, etc, etc.
 * 10) (The same is true of Catholics. Catholic in the English language means " Roman Catholic." If one want to say New Age (splinter group) "Catholic"; or Greek Catholic (the small number of Greek language Christians that accept the bishop of Rome; not to be confused with Greek Orthodox), or Lebanese "Maronite Catholic"; or those ultra traditionalists that broke away from the modern Catholic Church after Vatican II; or high church Episcopalians who term themselves Anglican Catholic; etc--then one needs to add the appropriate qualifier to Catholic, since in English if you simply write "Catholic," you mean: "Roman Catholic!" Hence: Catholic Social Workers is R.C.; Catholic Encyclopedia refers to R.C.; the The Catholic University of America is R.C.; Catholic schools are R.C.; Irish Catholics are R.C.; etc etc etc etc.)
 * The entire disscion above is about this very issue. I totally disagree.  "Mormon" isn't a religon, Latter Day Saint is.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

→I think this commenter has things a lot more accurate than the current main page. What can we incorporate from the observations made above?Peter Bright (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice
Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

LDS temple naming convention
Shouldn't we document what we base the names of the LDS temples on, compared with historic names (Manti Utah Temple vs Manti Temple), and why we don't use a comma (Manti, Utah Temple)? Anyone have a citable source for when that naming convention change happened? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, found a source...
 * ...but I still think that we need to include this in this naming convention guideline. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ...but I still think that we need to include this in this naming convention guideline. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably a good idea to include. However, I think the guideline linked to above has been changed since it was issued—for instance, it is no longer called the "Bogota D.C. Colombia Temple"; it is now just the "Bogota Colombia Temple". "Winter Quarters Temple" was changed to "Winter Quarters Nebraska Temple", and so forth. I'm not sure if there is an up-to-date guideline of the LDS Church that is published. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)