Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Church preferences

"Reference The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by full name first reference (there is currently a lack of consensus as to whether to capitalize The in the title), and "the church" or "LDS Church" thereafter"

The Church specifically requests it not be referred to as the "LDS Church", but rather the "Church of Jesus Christ" or simply "the Church" if a shorter form is required. Perhaps Wikipedia's standard should uphold this request?

The following is posted from Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Neutrality

Wikipedia has no other special in-policy naming convention or Manual of Style that is standard for any other religious denomination. LDS is the only one. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Submanuals.

Anglicanism - uses "adherents"

Bahá'í Faith - uses "adherents"

Buddhists - uses "adherents"

Chinese folk religion - uses "adherents"

Christianity - uses "adherents"

Calvinists - uses "adherents"

Eastern Orthodox Church - uses "adherents"

Islam - uses "adherents" (I also saw "followers" used, which I think is another good word to convey NPOV).

Judaism - uses "adherents"

Pentecostalism - uses "adherents"

Rastafari - uses "adherents"

Scientology - uses "adherents" (including in the cite of the court case that determined it was a protected religion)

Shinto - uses "adherents"

Spiritism - uses "adherents"

Unitarian Universalism - uses "followers"

"Members" can be appropriate in sentences such as "church officials claim [number] as members", when quoting, and as a balanced synonym to "adherents" or "followers", for example.

The point is to use language to convey NPOV, not to either discriminate or give special favor. Currently, the plastic-sounding naming uniformity helps contribute to the overall strong tone of sterilized officialdom from POV insiders that very clearly rings loudly in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Moreover, I would argue that the enforced naming convention may have a chilling effect on non-insiders who might otherwise wish to write on LDS subjects from NPOV. They see the policy and say to themselves forget it before they even start. It has that effect on me, for example, so it is not much of a stretch to see how it may have the same effect on others.

Wikipedia simply is not the place for LDS church officials to reach in through followers and stipulate its official language usage dictums. It is the place where standard academic language usage as applied across all religious movements should be used. To do otherwise is itself to contribute to POV in what results.

CyberAnth 07:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Trying to create a Wikipedia policy based upon official church statements is not NOPV. NPOV is acheived by language that is used across movements. For this reason, I am putting a NPOV tag into this Style Guide. CyberAnth

So, If I went to a Baptist Church site and refused to use the name Southern Baptist Convention -- that would also be NPOV? How about United Methodists? We use the formal name of other organizations -- churches, universities, charitable groups, sororities, etc. -- as a convenience to our readers, an accurate reflection of organizational structure, and as a courtesy, I would assume, to the organizations. But -- Mormons? No, we can't afford them the same courtesy as other groups. They are toooooo different and tooooo controversial. And they have opinions and preferences! How appalling! You will excuse me if I disagree with your logic. WBardwin 00:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what or who you are responding to except you are trying to paint me with persecutory motives. What has been going on in this style guide is preferential treatment, not discrimination. (Do any other religious movements have their own Wikipedia "style guide" with naming stipulates mandated by their top hierarchy? Answer: No.). I beleve the same standard I am speaking about should be applied to all religious groups without bias. CyberAnth 01:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I do think religious movements, organizations, tribes etc. have the right to state preferences on names & modes of address, and Wikipedia has an obligation to reflect those viewpoints. And yes, these viewpoints should be included in a manual of style for major groups, including religions, although they should not be the exclusive source. I would like to develop such a manual of style for Native people of the southwest. When I work on Southwest tribe articles, including archaeology articles, people often cite certain names and designations as prejudicial. In response, I am always careful to use the tribal preference, with appropriate source notes, whenever possible. I believe that it is a courtesy, not a POV, to reflect the preference of the people represented in the article. In the LDS movement, small distinctions in names differentiate the various sects and "old" traditional nicknames and slurs are offensive to some. Each sect has the right to decide how to designate their organization and followers and,yes, that should be reflected in a "style guide." And yes, I am offended by any outright rejection of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints preferences as a source and by the assumption that an all-powerful church is "imposing" their viewpoint on Wikipedia. Editors here, members or not, make these decisions -- not the Church. WBardwin 18:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lamanites, Nephites, Jaredites, Mulekites - it is only to be expected that Native Americans should not be referred to by these names outside of LDS circles, since evidence for such naming is ridiculously abscent in scholarly consensus. One should use naming for these groups that have consensus among scholars and that conveys clarity to the broadest array of readers, even when that contradicts naming preference by specific Nat Am tribes, although their self-defined named is most certainly a fact to mention and could certainly be used irrespective if it does not affront other groups. CyberAnth 07:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Wikipedia should respect an organization's preferences on how to refer to it, as long as those preferences don't contradict Wikipedia policies. It's just a matter of sensitivity and courtesy. But there are just a few matters on which the Wikipedia just can't follow LDS Church guidelines without violating WP:NPOV. For example, we can't really refer to the church as the Church or the Church of Jesus Christ, as that implies the church's POV that it is the only true church of Jesus Christ, and the terms are also ambiguous. Also, we can't refrain from applying the term Mormon to Mormon polygamists, because the polygamists themselves generally embrace the term. If we respect the preferences of the LDS Church, as a matter of NPOV we have to also respect the preferences of polygamist churches. COGDEN 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Revised guidelines

I've revised the guidelines to update some dated material, and to respond to the above objections. Comments are invited. COGDEN 00:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My concerns are satisfied. :-) CyberAnth 02:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand but would like to understand the rationale for this, however: "Articles on denominational applications of cross-movement practices, e.g. "Elder (Community of Christ)", are generally discouraged." CyberAnth 06:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That should be explained better. Basically, the naming conventions discourage articles that are to denominationally-specific, when the article could be written to cover the whole Latter Day Saint movement. We don't want separate articles called Elder or Temple for each specific denomination. COGDEN 16:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

First reference should use full name of church

This is mentioned above, although that is specifically for one denomination, and I'm not sure if Wikipedia already has a guideline about this already, but I propose the following:

The first reference for any church should use the full name of that church rather than a shortened version such as "LDS Church" or "FLDS". The first reference should also contain a link to that church's article. If you will later use a shortened name, add the shortened version in parenthesis after the first reference, e.g. "the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS)" or "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes called the LDS or Mormon Church)"

Except that it's not "sometimes called" the Mormon Church. It's refered to by that name far more than any other. Even members of the LDS Church nearly always refer to themselves in common speech as Mormons, not Latter-day Saints. I understand that the LDS Church leadership is trying to change the common usage among members and the press, but I don't understand why that initiative has been added to a Wikipedia sytle manual —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.166.224.67 (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Also, avoid linking the alternate names to a redirect page. The first reference will already contain the alternate names, as well as a link to that church's article. Thus, a second link is unnecessary.

I'll leave this here for a few days to get comments. --Lethargy 02:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is covered at Acronyms and abbreviations, although perhaps we could state it here as well for clarity's sake. --Lethargy 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is relevant enough to restate here. Val42 21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave up on waiting a few days, it is up now. :) --Lethargy 21:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of "The Church"

I think the use of "The Church" needs to be revisited. For The Church of Jesus Christ, the use of The Church is a common shortened form of the name, yet converntion states that it can't be used. In fact convention even states that "The Church of Jesus Christ" can't be used. There is something wrong with the convention and I think it needs to be updated. I propose an accptance of the use of "The Church" for The Church of Jesus Christ unless concensus comes up with a better, proper, shortened form. What does everyone think??? 205.149.71.152 19:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes to this section by a single editor without any discussion. The ANON above is correct; this new proposal is not acceptable and is not a correct usage of language in English. It is particularly unacceptable for the above church. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you check English usage publications such as the Chicago Manual of Style, it is quite clear that "the Church" is not appropriate unless used with "LDS Church" or "Mormon Church", etc. When just referring to "the church" in isolation, it is definitely not standard accepted English to capitalize. That's not to say that it doesn't happen—LDS church literature consistently capitalizes it as do many members of the church in their writings. But I think if you check usage in any other reputable encyclopedic work, it will not capitalize "church" when used in isolation, even when it is referring to a specific church. Break out your old print encyclopedias and note how they use capitalizations.

This rule also holds true in academic literature, with the only exception being when referring to the medieval Catholic Church in Europe, it is sometimes acceptable to capitalize the word "Church" when used in isolation (presumably because back then it was the church).

I would like to see anyone who claims capitalizing "church" is proper English to cite some sources (apart from a LDS publications) that backs up their views. Merely asserting something is the proper way to do it is not convincing—give us reliable works we can see as examples of your usage. My bet is that none are available that do so. -SESmith 07:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The guideline that was deleted (which I agree with) has been around for three months with nary a peep about it. I'm surprised it's even being raised now and am not sure it is appropriate to delete it completely based on the objection of one registered user (and one anon) (so far).

As for the LDS Church being able to use "The Church of Jesus Christ"—absolutely not. This is the complete and official name of another church in the Latter Day Saint movement; see The Church of Jesus Christ. Referring to the LDS Church by this name has confusion potential written all over it. That one should be a no-brainer. [Not relevant—misread Anon's statement above.] -SESmith 07:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

An available online reference that all can access. From Paul Brians, Common Errors in English Usage (2007): See entry here on ""Church". (More directly relative to the Catholic Church, but you get the general idea.) —SESmith 10:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have revised the guideline to reflect it is the proper name of the Bickertonite branch. Vassyana 21:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the Bickertonite's; what I take for granted is that they have the right to call their church whatever they choose. I know of no group that has the ability to say which church can be called by what specfic name. SEsmith you have gone off on a tear that has nothing to do with what I have said or what the Anon above has said. Not one editor has stated that the LDS church should be referred to as "The Church of Jesus Christ"; the Anon was simply saying it was the name of his/her church.

This conversation is similar to someone being chapped because the so many Catholics call their church the One and Only Holy and True Church. Who BLOODY CARES what they call themselves? It is simply what they call themselves. It is not a statement of fact, but of belief. Oh, of course, if what your real intention is that anyone else can call themselves the Church except for LDS, then we have another problem on our hands. SHOULD that be the case, then I enourage you to resist editing any topic that compromises your personal beliefs. I would also encourage that a personal blog might be more appropriate for you.

In addtion, I am not aware of any policy that states if someone, particularly one that is an admitted anti-Mormon, slips a statement into the Manual of Style that it is not immediately reverted, then it becomes law for Wikipedia. If you do, please show us that policy. If not, then I suggest you quit attempting to ratify your position because of an edit done by a single individual without discussion on this Manual of Style.

As far as the English language, I currently do not have any grammar books from grade school. It will take me some time, but upon finding such a source I will share it with you. However, upon doing so, I request that any changes you made to meet your personal proclivities be reverted in their entirety.

I did begin to review the Chicago Manual of Style and found two items that support your position:

8.97 - “Down” style

"Chicago urges a spare, “down” style in the field of religion as elsewhere. Lowercasing rarely gives offense. Understanding is best served by capitalizing only what are clearly proper nouns and adjectives in the context under discussion."

8.106 - Church

When used alone to denote organized Christianity as an institution, the church is usually lowercased.

church and state

the early church

the church in the twenty-first century

the church fathers

I believe there is still more to be reviewed. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, Storm Rider, I think you need to realise that I probably just misread Anon's statement. If you read my statement carefully (or checked out the talk pages at The Church of Jesus Christ) you would realise that. I read the comment too quickly and thought they were referring to the LDS Church. I agree with the Anon's statement. What happened to assuming good faith? Your personal attacks have no place here and violate WP policy.

My impression is that you seem to be taking this all too seriously. It's a simple discussion about usage of the language. I never suggested that anyone but the LDS Church could use "Church". I "believe" in these principles of usage, regardless of the church. The only church which may possibly be granted an exception is the Catholic Church, for the reasons I have mentioned (i.e. strictly ones of tradition and common use). In any case, we are only here addressing the usage among Latter Day Saint churches. I have no ill feeling toward any church of what they choose to call themselves. Not sure where you are getting all of this—It looks like you, if anyone, is the one going "off on a tear" here.

And although the change to the Styleguide was made by one editor (as all edits are), it went uncommented on and was being implemented for over 3 months. That appears to signal silent agreement from the masses. (I would also point out that this was an issue last year and was discussed in Section 1 above on this page. We are merely rehashing what was said there.) Apart from you, there hasn't been any great protest to the policy or its implementation from registered users. There is nothing to suggest it was done maliciously or by an "anti-Mormon", as you so artfully put it. It seems that it is you, not me, who is attempting to get things changed to conform with your "personal proclivities". I have just been implementing what has been the accepted rule for over 3 months on WP, and probably longer, based on the discussion in Section 1 above.

Finally, depending on the age of your books from "grade school", they may not be relevant. The acceptable usage of English changes over time. That's why new editions of usage manuals are issued. (I wasn't clear if you meant you were going to dig up some of your books from grade school or don't have them anymore and so have to go elsewhere to research the issue.) -SESmith 09:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to the Anon post, I think restricting the name The Church of Jesus Christ to refer only to the church with that official name (i.e., the "Bickertonite" church) is a good idea. However, that church and all others should not be referred to in Wikipedia as "The Church", even though that's common usage in the internal writings and apologetic writings of several denominations. Calling something "The Church" or "the Church" as a proper noun, with capitals anywhere, implies that the organization is The church, that is, "the only true Church". I don't see any reason on Wikipedia to use "the Church" in reference to the Catholic church either, even though that is aparently acceptable academically in some situations. COGDEN 20:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've edit the page to better separate the two issues.[1] Vassyana 23:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you will find the Catholic Church article to be an example of exactly what you are stating should not exist. They seem to only refer to their church as the Church. Although I don't have a problem with it given the context of the article and the fact that they addressed their offical name first and then have followed up with "the Church" or "The Church" at the beginning of sentences. Now either I am correct in my assumptions or I am wrong; if I am wrong does this rule apply to all churches or just small ones, or ones that begin with "M" or that have Latter-day in their official title (Yes, I am being silly, but it is an attempt to interject humor); Vassyana, I have long admired your work. SEsmith, you are newer to me, but you have a penchant for enforcing policy; which of you is going to take this policy and enforce it on that page? If it is good for the goose, it will certainly be good for the gander. If it is not implemented there, then I can only assume this is an unfair policy and should be deleted from all Manuals of Style (surprisingly I could not find one for the Roman Catholic Church, or the Jehovahs Witnesses, or Methodists, or Baptists; why are earth must there be one for LDS?). --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it. It's improper English usage and probably a violation of NPOV. Thanks for the kind compliment by the by. :O) Vassyana 23:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember WP is a work-in-progress. Just because other articles or classes of articles have not implemented a specific policy does not necessarily mean that it should not be implemented elsewhere. There's only so much time in the day and many editors just don't have the time to implement certain policies on every page where it should or could be implemented. Most of us edit pages about things that interest us; I don't have any particular interest in the Roman Catholic Church and would not tend to gravitate there and make any changes, stylistic or otherwise.

Also, Vassyana, you may run into flak on the page for the Catholic Church for doing this, simply because (as I have stated above) there is a tradition in academic writing for capitalizing "Church" when referring to the Roman Catholic Church. I believe it should be lower-cased for all churches, but the argument is certainly harder to make for the Roman Catholic Church just because of the inertia of academic tradition, which is much stronger than the inertia of church-use tradition that exists in the LDS Church. Anyway, I applaud your bravery. -SESmith 00:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to keep everyone updated on my progress...the Chicago Manual of Style's website also allows for questions to be proposed; here is the answer to my question regarding this issue:

No--"church" should be lowercased when referring to a specific church. Please see CMOS 8.106: Bethany Evangelical Lutheran Church; the church

Thank you for writing--

Staff

I will continue to research the issue, but this is my current finding, which supports SESmith's position.

Vassyana, you would be kind to do so and I believe it will not be easy. I know it seems petty, but when one small group has been doing it for over 175 years and it is easily cast aside in the name of "correct style", any argument that another group has been doing it longer and is therefore justified rings hollow. It is either a correct style or it is not.

When we begin at the bottom, amongst the minorities to make changes that the majority is unwilling to make, then we condone the majority's tyranny and we will have abandoned any principles that we once might have stated were the guides of our actions. The merit of a just society is when the majority implements a standard of rightness and then beckons to the minorities to follow. If we can not begin at the top; it is best to not begin at all. This is seldom truly learned until each of us finds ourselves in the position of a minority. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I went to the Catholic article and read the following:

Many Catholics dislike the term "Roman Catholic", because some use it to posit a distinction between "the Roman Catholic Church" and "the catholic Church". When in dialogue with other Christians, the Church uses either "Catholic Church" or, if this term is not acceptable to the partner in dialogue, "Roman Catholic Church". Except in such dialogue, the Church most commonly refers to itself as "the Church", and uses "the Catholic Church" far less commonly, and "the Roman Catholic Church" extremely rarely. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an example: in it, "the Church" appears many hundreds of times, compared to 24 uses of "the Catholic Church" (including the title of the book) and no use of the term "the Roman Catholic Church".

If this is all that is necessary, then the easy answer is to provide the same explanation on the LDS Church page and move on. Thoughts?--Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there may be a bit of distinction in the reasons of the Roman Catholic Church's decision to capitalize "Church" and the LDS Church's decision to capitalize, and the two situations are not precisely parallel. From my understanding, one of the main reasons that the Roman Catholic Church refers to itself as "the Church" is because they believe that they are actually the church that all Christians belong to, whether the Christian knows it or not. That is why they are the "catholic Church" (small "c" catholic—meaning "universal", not the specific church headed by the pope ). When you begin attending mass at the Roman Catholic Church (become a "convert", in other words), you do not have to be baptized by a Roman Catholic priest if you have already been baptized into a Christian church that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes as a legitimate part of the small-c catholic Christian church. The person has no need to "join" the Roman Catholic Church because they were a member of the small-c catholic church all along. That may not make sense to all—but I believe it is one of their rationalizations for capitalizing "Church". The LDS Church doesn't use such a justification for their capitalization. -SESmith 01:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is a partial reason; there is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It claims to be the True Church of Jesus Christ upon the face of the earth and if one is Christian, one must proclaim their spiritual descent from Catholicism. This belief is fundamental to Roman Catholicism that has 1700 years of support. After 325, heresy was heresy as defined by the Catholic Church because it believed it was The Church; no other Christian church could exist outside of Rome without becoming exommunicated by Rome.

Why do LDS use a capital "C"hurch...among many reasons is because they believe they are the restored church of Jesus Christ, the only true church (empowered to act in the name of Jesus Christ) upon the face of the earth. LDS may not use Holy in their description, but I think the same feelings are held by LDS as Catholics hold for their church.

Also, the belief of accepting the baptisms of other churches is a recent belief within Catholicism. Throughout the majority of their history that thought would have been anathema; there was one baptism and that was only done by a duly authorized Catholic. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that really is the main reason the LDS Church capitalizes "Church", that's all the more reason to not do it in WP (in order to maintain NPOV), regardless of what proper English grammar is. -SESmith 06:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I have altered the Catholic article to reflect proper and neutral English usage. [2] Cheers! Vassyana 00:57, 9 May 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 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This was a rather long drawn out topic on the Catholic Church article and the concensus after its last FA, was that using the a captial "C" when discussing the Church was acceptable. As a result, I went back to the LDS Church article and reflected this usage. In an article when referring The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by using just "church" it is best to refer to it as "Church", a shorthand for the full name of the LDS Church. --^StormRider 05:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious if this discussion referred to was about any church or just specifically the Catholic Church. I know it's the practice of some real-world (non-WP) editors to allow caps for the "Church" when it's a reference to the Catholic Church but not when referring to other churches. Where is the discussion found? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the conversation can be found here. Interesting bit of conversation. Allowing Church only for a single church is highly POV and unacceptable. If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. Thoughts? --^StormRider 08:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, SEsmith used that same argument above for why the CC uses Church. I thought it a specious position then and I still do. I am willing to abide by any policy that is the policy for all, but I am not willing to abide a policy that is only applicable to minorities. The lesson of aparthied are far-reaching and I readily, appropriately chaff at anything that is remotely similar. --^StormRider 08:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to the discussion. Yeah, I don't really fully understand the rationale for the argument I mentioned, but I have seen it, and I see it above too now that you pointed it out (I didn't read through the entire above before). I'm fine with whatever approach we want to take; I'm just more curious than anything on the debate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "the"

Is there a particular reason the guideline suggests that the word "the" in the full title of the Church be capitalised? This goes against standard practice for capitalisation of titles in English. JulesH 20:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Others can give more detail, but, to give a short answer, "The" is capitalized because it is part of the proper name. — Val42 02:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but standard rules of English usage are to decapitalise the word "the" in in-sentence usage, even when it is part of a proper name. See for instance the Oxford Manual of Style, pp 73-74, which gives examples including "the Roman Catholic Church", another institution which has "the" as part of its proper name. It is, in fact, a general rule that prepositions are not capitalised in proper names, which is followed in this guideline for 'of' but bizarrely not for 'the'. JulesH 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that is the standard, and for most of its history the LDS Church did not capitalize the "The". A few decades ago, however, the church wanted to more explicitly emphasize its position that it is "The" church of Jesus Christ, rather than just one of many churches of Jesus Christ, and thereafter has been insistent on capitalizing the "The". Our policy here just reflects that current policy, since generally, we should call organizations what they want to be called. COGDEN 00:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions

There is a discussion on naming conventions of people. See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints) to join the discussion. Bytebear 02:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the edit summary by SMcCandlish, but I'm still wondering why the article naming conventions were moved much further down in the MoS. I think that the article naming coventions would come first. — Val42 20:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Mormonisms"

I've recently added two more recommendations of "Mormonisms" to avoid. I think they are relatively non-controversial and relate really to what are stylistic matters, but comments are welcome. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 03:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a different opinion on the use of President,Elder etc. Those are common titles of identification (such as Pope and archbishop, which are used in various Catholic articles in Wikipedia). We also use the term congressman, senator, etc. The title does not have to be used with each reference, but why not keep use them if we keep other titles? Alanraywiki 04:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that if used as a title for a person they may be capitalized. "Apostle McConkie", etc. I just don't see them as appropriate to capitalize when referred to in the abstract, since they are not proper nouns. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. Feel free to adjust as needed. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 05:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with that bullet point. It was the following bullet point I was referring to. That one can probably be removed. Sorry I wasn't clear. Alanraywiki 05:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh—no, it's my fault—your statement was clear in retrospect. I thought the general practice in WP was to not include honorific-type titles that precede the surname. I can see an exception being made for the pope, but isn't that because the pope actually changes his name and is referred to by a single name only? I don't really see the need to refer to "President Hinckley" throughout his biographical article. I'd like to hear what others say about this too. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 09:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The section has been slightly revised by SMcCandlish to allow the title in the lead section, and then just go by surname. I was only concerned about leaving it out completely. The current version looks okay to me. Alanraywiki 19:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Anachronisms

Would there be any opposition (or support) for me adding a section on "avoiding anachronisms", kind of similar to the "avoiding Mormonisms" section? The main issue is that editors often refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when reference is being made to the early-1830s Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints). Perhaps a small section that sets out the approximate dates for various name changes and therefore the acceptable names to use for the unitary Latter Day Saint church prior to the succession crisis? For instance, there would be nothing wrong with referring to the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" if reference is being made to the church after 1838 but pre-succession crisis, as long as it's piped to link to Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints). (Part of the issue is caused by the LDS Church's D&C 115:4, which has changed the spelling of the church in the original text to match how it spells the full name of the LDS Church.) There may be some other anachronistic issues that could be addressed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In light of the lack of comments here, I'll go ahead and create something. Of course, the issue can be re-opened here once I've done so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see this addition until now, but I concur with the new section. COGDEN 00:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"one true Church"

While I don't have a problem with the rule that capitalizations such as "the Church" should be avoided, I always hesitate to use the rationale that it is unacceptable due to its implication that there is "one true church." This rationale and others such as the "not proper English" rationale, have been debated several times before.

I realize that this style page doesn't apply to articles of other religions, but I still fail to see how this rationale can be appropriate for LDS articles and not for the Roman Catholic Church article. The true rationale, it seems, is that when "the Church" is used referring to the Roman Catholic Church, nobody cares, but if it refers to a Latter Day Saint church, some people care. Despite Wikipedia's goal of NPOV, a certain subtle POV appears anyways in order to please both editors and audience, and this is one such case. Again, I don't have a problem with the rule, but the rationale is not so simple.

I propose that instead we could provide the simple reasoning that "usage of such capitalizations when referring to Latter Day Saint denominations is controversial." From what we see within our own Wikipedia community, I think we can at least agree that the statement is valid.

--...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that recently the Church was changed to the church in the LDS Church article. I disagree with the change simply because of the conversation that went on at the Catholic Church article. The gist of the reason for using Church in the CC article was that it was shorthand for the full title, the Catholic Church. The same logic applies to the LDS Church article. In the article, the church is used as a shortened version of the full name of the Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have worked on both sides of this issue; my main objective is that we use the same policies everywhere. I would support the change back to the Church in the article and all other LDS related topics where the church is a references to the full name of the LDS Church.--^StormRider 21:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have amended the policy that so that it is more reflective of actual use on Wikipedia usage. I see no reason why the Latter Day Saint articles should be any different than other church articles.--^StormRider 21:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(fixed typo) While I hesitantly agree with the change that StormRider has made, I worry that other editors won't be so quick to accept it. Reading this conversation that StormRider mentioned previously was very insightful (though I admit I did NOT read the whole thing...it's enormous). I suggest that anyone interested in debating the change first review said conversation. --...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 22:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I certainly don't accept the change Storm Rider made, and would suggest a little more consensus-building before the text is changed (or at the very least some time-lapse so that editors have a chance to comment). That said, since there is obvious opposition to the way it stood before, I suggest we adopt B Fizz's suggestion of stating that it is "controversial". (To say that the Catholic church articles use it and so should the LDS articles is just a version of me-tooism. There's no reason we can't come up with a different standard here.) But typically with controversial issues like this, we talk first, make changes second, which is why I've (hopefully temporarily) reverted to the way this was when the discussion began. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to treat one religion differently from another. You really think it is acceptable to differentiate between the majority position (i.e. the Catholic Church) and a minority (the LDS Church)...please do tell why. This will be rich. --^StormRider 06:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with capitalizing it in either context. But I haven't been involved in the other discussion, nor do I plan to be. I personally view the issue as one relating to intra-Latter Day Saint movement rather than inter-LDS Church–Catholic Church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it applies to any other church; within the movement or outside of it. In the CC article I would do the same thing. In every church article instead of using church, it should be Church. It does not indicate importance or supremacy, but rather indicates that when using Church it refers to the entity by its proper name. Using church is generic, using Church replaces the proper noun...the whole name of the relative church being discussed. --^StormRider 15:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think I understand that position (especially after having read the lengthy comments in the Catholic Church thread). Hopefully you can understand the other position too. The fact that there are two credible positions on the matter suggests to me it would be most productive to not have a set guideline about it at this point, but rather to adopt some for of BFizz's "it is contoversial" statement. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) I find both of your positions to be rather intriguing, and mostly valid. But I somewhat disagree with the argument that the issue is intra-Latter Day Saint movement. The general public, when reading any given article on a Latter Day Saint church, will probably NOT interpret that article's usage of "the Church" as meaning that the church in discussion is The True Latter Day Saint Church and all others are not. It is possible that adherents to the church in discussion might interpret it to be that way, but that's what they think anyways and a Wikipedia article's capitalization is unlikely to change their mind. I realize there is more argument to the other side of the issue, but in the interest of not talking in circles, suffice it to say that I've made an edit to the article, again attempting NOT to change the rule, but to use a legitimate rationale. I don't know why the rationale bothers me so, call me OCD I guess ;) I hope my edit is not misinterpreted to mean that I support and defend the rule as it stands, I find StormRider's argument to be logically sound. Just controversial. I think that the fight for quality Wikipedia articles, in this case, doesn't matter so much on whether we use "the Church" or "the church." Rather, it matters more to me that we can simply agree and move on to other matters. Why, then, if I profess an interest in the quality of articles, do I spend so much time articulating myself on an LDS Style Guide talk page? I find it educatoinal, and a form of understanding myself. My goodness, I really should start blogging or something. --...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 05:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion was a bit of a Fizzle, really. (Har har har.) I was hoping to hear from some other editors. With such limited participation it's pretty difficult to say that we've actually resolved anything one way or the other. In the meantime, because I can recognise that my position too is controversial, if desired I'm willing to compromise and have the rule state that the caps should not be changed from how the article was initially written—if it was written first with small caps then it shouldn't be changed up, and vice versa. However, this might be worse, because it would mean some articles would use the "up-style" and some would use the "down-style". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the last two comments; I guess it did fizzle a bit. I think I understand both sides of the issue, but I generally go to what is good for the goose is good for the gander. In reviewing the Catholic Church threads you probably noticed that I had taken Good's position that it should be small "c" as a result of the past conversation at LDS related articles. Those happened further back...I had previously forfeited the position of using a capital "C" in view of a personal discussion with the Chicago Manual of Style people. In effect, I have argued both positions. After much thought and lots of conversationMy current position is that Church should be used when it is an abbreviation for the full name of a church, regardless of which church is being discussed. This has always been a grammar issue for me and not an issue about what church is "the" true church. --^StormRider 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The situation for the Catholic Church is quite a bit different from the LDS Church. For many centuries, the Catholic Church was, in fact, the Christian church. It was the only one in existence, and therefore the usage of "the Church" had a history, people understood what it meant, and the capitalization was used in scholarly writing. (I disagree with the use of "the Church" in Catholicism-based articles; however, my objection is on the basis that it is archaic.)

However, use of "the Church" in the LDS Church context has no such historical origin or academic acceptance. This usage is, from what I can tell, a mid- to late-19th century practice by LDS publication editors designed to emphasize the view that the LDS Church was the "one true church", or the same early Church established by Jesus. This usage is very well illustrated in the introduction to vol. 1 of B.H. Roberts' History of the Church series, where he outlines a view of the history of the apostasy, and capitalizes "the Church" whenever he believes that he is talking about the original true Christian church, and then uses lowercase to refer to the Catholic Church after the apostacy: "He brought into existence His Church,...and when the Apostles were all fallen asleep, then corruptions ran riot in the Church;...a church made by men was substituted for the Church of Christ (p. XCVI). Maybe, it also partially reflected the fact that in Utah, there was one dominant church, and you could say "the Church" and everyone in Utah would know what you were talking about.

But this usage did not exist in the earliest LDS Church writings such the Doctrine and Covenants (1835 to modern), Evening and Morning Star (1832-34), Messenger and Advocate (1834-37), or the Times and Seasons (1839-1846). It was also not in Orson Pratt's Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon (1850). Nor is the practice generally used in modern academic writing written to a general audience, such as in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (which does not even capitalize the "church" in "LDS church"). In BYU Studies, a strongly apologetic publication dealing with only the LDS Church, they use "the Church" (but strangely, do not capitalize the the "church " in "LDS church" either). Juanita Brooks and Will Bagley do not capitalize in their works on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. D. Michael Quinn does not appear to capitalize. Richard Bushman does not appear to capitalize, either (except, apparently, in his Believing history which was a religious work written for believers). Thus, outside a religious, believing, post-1950 context, the academic practice is not to capitalize, even when it is clear from the context which "church" you are referring to. Wikipedia should follow that general academic practice. COGDEN 18:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but on an unrelated thread I read a user's statement that use of the capital "C" for "Church" in an article about any particular church was adopted in the MOS as a general rule, but I can't find this anywhere. I thought maybe Storm Rider you were aware of this and/or whether or not this is accurate. I suppose if it has been adopted as a general rule this MOS should probably comply, but I can't find the general rule... Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was formally adopted I have not seen it and am not aware of it. On the Roman Catholic Church article there was extensive conversation about this topic. They chose to use Church in the article when church is used to refer specifically to the RCC. The decision being Church is used as a proper noun in place of the full name of the church. However, I don't think their actions resulted in a formal change to MOS, but rather was a choice they made on that article. Several months later I then changed the LDS Church article to reflect this change (using capital "C" when church refers to the LDS Church), but it was later reverted by COgden. I apologize, but I cannot be of more help. This area remains rather murky with groups doing things differently. Cheers.--^StormRider 15:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming around to believing that that approach (using a capitalization) is OK in the Latter Day Saint movement context. It's basically a stylistic matter—I happen to prefer a general Chicago-esque "down size" for most things—but I see the caps being applied more and more in non-Latter Day Saint articles about other churches. So you could say I'm relatively neutral at this point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It is funny thing, some see a capital letter and interpret completely differently than others. I continue to think it is first a stylstic issue and not a statement of being the "only" church. However, I wrote to the Chicago people and their response to my question was unequivical...it is small "c". I may have asked the question badly, but I conceded the point on LDS articles when it was first brought up, took that position on the CC article and lost the battle. Now I can tolerate both ways being used on Wikipedia. Eventually, a definitive MOS ruling will be made and implemented. --^StormRider 01:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We all struggle. The trend in English seems to be toward lower case. As in: Dan Rather questioned the president/Rather questioned President Nixon...........German is old-school. All Nouns are upper-Case. May God bless the English....etc.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Calamitybrook (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC which could affect this MOS

It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment [Edited: Mere throat clearing (Apologies)]

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:

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.)

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's Secret Garden (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And this seems to be becoming a broad trend. Eg, here on the webpage for Diane von Furstenberg's DVF Awards for 2011, when we click on Elizabeth Smart's bio we find that the text only uses the term LDS once, with no use of the term Mormon.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

We should change this MOS so it no longer says to avoid the use of Mormon in reference to the LDS Church. The opposite is how the English language works at present and WP should reflect English usage and not drive it, per our naming guidelines--and, indeed, WP article titles regularly use the word Mormon in this context. The MOS should reflect the information given in mainspace at the article subsection "Latter Day Saint movement#Latter Day Saint vs. Mormon." (Also note the related issue, "Latter Day Saint movement#Latter Day Saint vs. Latter-day Saint.")--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the term is that it is rather imprecise and ambiguous in meaning. In some contexts, there is no problem in using the term "Mormon" to refer to the LDS Church, as the MOS recognises, but there are also a number of situations where it confuses rather than clarifies, especially when one is considering the relationship of the LDS Church to other smaller Latter Day Saint groups in the western United States. I think what currently exists in the MOS is a very good summary of the issue and is accruate. It says the term "Mormon" may be used in referring to the LDS Church but notes the problems with it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO the MOS should more clearly state, rather than imply, the nuance you give the matter.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How so? Currently, it states:

"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. Therefore, the word Mormon should be used to refer to Latter Day Saint movement adherents only in the following situations: (1) In reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, this denomination opposes the use of the term Mormon Church, a term that should not be used in Wikipedia articles in any case, since there are several churches that could be described as a 'Mormon church'. When referring to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term Latter-day Saint is more accurate than Mormon, and therefore preferred. (2) In reference to denominations, organizations, or people with historic or cultural ties to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and related organizations originating in Utah. For example, one may refer to Mormon fundamentalism, Mormon pioneer, or ex-Mormon."

It seems relatively clear when I read it, though I'm sure it could be improved. What other changes did you have in mind? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to try to improve it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I like your changes, Good Ol'factory. Good work. How about also mentioning, "Where there are ample references to the church in an article--or else, say, in an infobox--tend to use the full CoJCoLdS form, at first reference; thereafter, according to context, use other forms, especially adjectively. Members of the church are properly called Mormon(s) or Latter-day Saint(s)."

In general, my beef with the MOS is that it insists that "Latter-day Saint is more accurate than Mormon, and therefore preferred." Not so. Sometimes another forms is preferred. (By the way, the Church's own syle guide doesn't like the term "LDS Church." ("Please avoid the use of 'Mormon Church', 'LDS Church' or the 'Church of the Latter-day Saints'," it reads.) However, I agree that it might be preferable to Mormon Church, slightly.

In news accounts in the heart of the Mormon corridor in Salt Lake City, the initialism LDS is used because of its shortness. However, when the population dips maybe below 10% LDS or thereabouts, news reports will tend to avoid the less-known abbreviation or else use it after providing its meaning in the text, I think.

Btw, check these out:
-Here is the first reference to the LDS Church in an article published last week in the Salt Lake Tribune: "It’s also a bit of a local issue, given that [Glenn] Beck has, on several occasions, made much of his membership in the Mormon Church." Does the Tribune writer err here, or is it in some contexts OK to use that term? For encyclopedic purposes, the CoJCoLdS, spelled out, is likely better; but, the fact remains that even in SLC, UT, usage indicates that some variance is acceptable, depending on context or desired tone or what not.
- Another example from last week in the Mormon Times, in a piece written by a journalism professor that uses the word Mormon to refer to members of the LDS Church a hundred times and uses the words Latter-day Saint(s) or LDS zero times.
- Here Glenn Beck, [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=272953#ixzz1GDSkJcvi in his 2011 book] Seven Wonders writes on p149-150: "I questioned everything I could think to question about the faith. I went over my doubts again and again with the church bishop. I read everything there was to read on their website and every word of Mormon Doctrine ... I went to anti-Mormon literature for hints, but I found most of it to be unfair or just plain wrong. I tried every trick I could think of to find a contradiction. The problem was that I couldn't. Mormonism seemed to explain the world and my place in it better than any other faith I had looked at." (Of course, previously on p149 Beck wrote: "Latter-day Saints do not believe that your chances ever cease, even with death. They end only with the full understanding and denial of the truth by your own exercise of real free will. And even then there is no 'lake of fire.'")
-Here is a post last week from Time magazine's blog where famed reviewer Richard Corliss makes repeated references to both plyg Mormons and mainstream Mo's. To deconstruct Corliss's off-the-cuff terminologies, see below:

  - "A Mormonish church," "the LDS and its offshoots," etc., refer to the Latter Day Saint movement, in general
  - "Cult of Heavenly Motherism" refers to a well-known doctinal stream within historical and present-day Mormonism
  - "Gray panther of Mormon feminism" might refer to such no-longer-mainstream Mormons as Margaret Merrill Toscano, Sonia Johnson, etc.
  - Dialogue-snippet "The woods are full of kooks wandering around in robes saying, 'That's what God wants" refers to such Utah individuals as: no-longer-mainstream Mormon visionary Stirling Allan; convicted criminal Brian David Mitchell/aka Immanuel David Isaiah; etc.
  - "Nouveau-polygamist" refers to such plygs as: the Centennial Park group; the present-day Church of the Firstborn; the Kingston clan; or the AUB (Apostolic United Brethren) that basketball player Lance Allred was raised in; etc.
  - "A fourth strain, Albie's" refers to such old-fashioned or otherwise extremist groups as: the FLDS; the now nearly defunct, murderous Church of the Lamb group of Ervil LeBaron infamy; etc.
  - "Regulation-LDS," "mainstream Mormons," "regular Mormon," etc., refer to the CoJCoLdS (meaning, of course, the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," phew!)

OK, I've gotten a little afield here, but nonetheless the bottom line is--indeed, even Wikipedia article titles use either the abbreviation LDS or the relatively more informal term Mormon more than they do the more formal Latter-day Saint(s). Rather than have a vague MOS suggestion that contradicts what WP's own titles do, it ought to either do away with stating a preference or else somehow explain in what contexts CoiJCoLdS, Latter-day Saint(s), and the other variants might be preferred and maybe when they might be considered equally appropriate, even in elevated text like that of an encyclopedia.

Or, how about this one? "When talking inside-baseball about LDS doctrines and the like, tend to use Latter-day Saint(s) or the initialism LDS (that is, generally after this abbreviation has been defined in the text). But, when talking mostly about the LDS in relation with the outside culture, tend to use Mormon." This would be sort of an insular/parochial versus external/cosmopolitan divide, I guess.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• I do think that "Latter-day Saint" really is more accuate than "Mormon", because it is more narrow and is unambiguous, unlike "Mormon". There are "Mormon" people and things that are not part of the LDS Church, but the same cannot be said for "Latter-day Saint". That is not to say that "Mormon" is not commonly used to refer to the LDS Church. It is. But the thing is—this is a manual of style. It selects a style for usage across WP. It is not intended to necessarily reflect what any other organization prefers or tends to use. Manuals of style are essentially documents of convenience so all editing proceeds with a common foundation. It doesn't set out what is "correct" and what is "incorrect", it just sets out an accepted style for convenience. What currently exists appears to me to be the least ambiguous option. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Titling guidelines universally say to follow and not lead English usage. This avoids WP making anomalous or idiosyncratic distinctions. That said, there is a bunch of scholarly material that makes a distinction between Latter-day Saint, in reference to mainstream Mo's, and Latter Day Saint, in reference to anybody within the whole Latter Day Saint Movement. Yet, with that being said, I defy anyone to conduct a survey that shows but a teensy smidgeon of even college-educated and widely read folk that are aware of this inside-baseball distinction. People rarely even pay attention to tiny differences of hyphenization and inside-word proper noun capitalization with the idea that the orthographic anomalies portend gross variances in meaning.

According to usage, Mormon means LDS unless it is further qualified. And that is it. (Just as Catholic means Roman Catholic, despite the existance of other kinds of "Catholics.") And, as a matter of fact, in spoken language, your statement can be thought to go "...Latter Day Saint really is more accuate than Mormon, because it is more narrow and is unambiguous, unlike Mormon. There are Mormon people and things that are not part of the LDS Church, but the same cannot be said for Latter Day Saint"--which statement is false. My suggestion is simpler and follows reliable sources. Yet it isn't too simple: that is, it doesn't simplify matters more than the sources will support.

(In any case, if WP does adopt its own distinctions apart from common usage--which I admit it might well do--it should come up with one that only uses Latter-day Saint or Latter Day Saint and not both, in my opinion. For what it's worth.)

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're overanalyzing the issue. This is a MOS, not a titling guideline like WP:COMMONNAME. The MOS doesn't prohibit the use of "Mormon". It merely points out, correctly, that it is more ambiguous than other terms. (What percentage of users understands why that is the case is another issue entirely, but it's not one that a MOS needs to worry too much about.) There's nothing wrong with that, as far as I can see. (In fact, "(Mormon)" is designed in the Latter Day Saint naming guidelines as an appropriate disambiguator for members of the LDS Church heirarchy, as with John W. Taylor (Mormon).) Ultimately, editors can use whichever they thing is appropriate in a given situation. I would like to hear what others think too, but I'm not too optimistic that anyone is going to read through this now-lengthy section. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding term "the Mormon Church"

• Note - [Added later: Hi. I've just done some appropriate wp:CANVASSING in the hopes of attracting knowledgeable or interested eyes to this thread. Note that the main issue is stated more clearly in the following subsection, just below. Thanks!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC) ]

The MOS is guilty of a form of special pleading in its mentions that the LDS Church dislikes the term "Mormon Church." The MOS even advertises use of the term "LDS Church"--whereas the LDS Church dislikes both "Mormon Church" and "LDS Church." If the Mormon Church's preference is to be given deference with regard one of its disliked indentifying terminologies but not the other, some kind of rationale should exist for WPdia to do so and this should be sussed out or abandoned, in my opinion, even if this is done so only here on the talkpage.

Thoughts?

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggested rationale for the above: Both "Mormon Church" and "LDS Church" are nicknames for the CoJCoLdS denomination. The MOS's assertion, however, that "Mormon Church" is less accurate than "LDS Church" is controversial. The MOS argues

the term Mormon Church, a term that should not be used in Wikipedia articles in any case, since there are several churches that could be described as a "Mormon church"

--however, this assertion simply can not square with either any examination of empirical English-usage data nor with specialized lexicographical reference works mentioning these terms. Rather, usage and reference works support the contention that "the Mormon Church" is universally understood to reference the LDS Church--with the phrase using the indefinite article ("a Mormon Church") when referring to a splinter-sized denomination being understood in its meaning through context. The MOS's argument seems entail an ad hoc attempt to rationalize the preference for the encyclopedia use of LDS Church over Mormon Church; however, it is unsuccessful. This preference is more simply and accurately explained through the fact that the term "Mormon Church" is especially informal. I'll return in a bit with citations to support my thesis.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

1. AP Stylebook:

   Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The

   SPLINTER GROUPS: The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after Smith's death."

2. Mormon Times, the largest circulation journalistic endeavor covering the somewhat more secular aspects of Mormonism as a culture and people (emphasis mine):

   Ask the editor

   Why, while The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is trying to emphasize its full name and discourage the use of "Mormon Church," does the Deseret Morning News call this section "Mormon Times?"

   Two reasons.

   1. Calling this section "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Times" is just not reasonable because of the length of the title. The church recognizes that shortened versions sometimes are necessary, such as the church's main official Web sites, lds.org and mormon.org, or church-affiliated agencies such as LDS Family Services.

   2. The Mormon Times is not an official church publication about the church. An official publication is the weekly Church News — distributed every Saturday as part of the Deseret Morning News.

   Mormon Times is about the people, faith and culture associated with the church. The church's media guide says:

   • "Mormon" is an acceptable reference to church members.
   • Also, "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."

3. Encyclopaedia Britannica:

   Melchizedek priesthood

   Melchizedek priesthood, in the Mormon church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), the higher of the two priesthoods, concerned with spiritual rather than secular matters.

4. Salt Lake Tribune:

   'LDS Church' Still Term Of Choice for Newspapers

   [...]

   Pat Bean, city editor for the Standard-Examiner in Ogden, balked at signing on to the proposed style change, saying a change would only muddy the journalistic waters.

   The Salt Lake Tribune is complying only with the request that the church not be referred to as the "Mormon church," under a policy instituted Thursday, said Editor James E. Shelledy.

   "A church may determine its official name, and the news media ought formally to recognize it," he said on Monday. "However, The Tribune will continue to use 'LDS' as the abbreviated version of, or second reference to, the official name of the institution.</p.

   "Using 'Church of Jesus Christ' as a second reference is akin to the FBI asking everyone to refer to the agency as the 'Federal Bureau.' It is too vague, and 'LDS' is too deeply ingrained among Mormons and non-Mormons alike." The Tribune will continue to use "Mormon" or "Latter-day Saints" to refer to members, missionaries, historical figures and events, among other things, Shelledy said.

   [...]

   "They've been known as the 'Mormon church' forever," she said. "We've ignored what they've said on this so far, but if pressed, I might be willing to not call them the 'Mormon church.' [...] The Spectrum in St. George will wait for a new managing editor to be appointed before addressing the issue, said copy editor Kevin Jenkins. The Daily Herald in Provo plans to stick with AP's style, said Mitch Wilkinson, assistant managing editor.

   "It is an interesting issue for clarity's sake," he said. "But it has been known locally as 'LDS Church' or the 'Mormon church' for so long. We will likely still be using Mormon on second reference, along with LDS Church."

5. New York Times:

   Adapting 'Mormon' to Emphasize Christianity

   [...]

   "I don't mind being called a Mormon, but I don't want it said that I belong to the Mormon Church," said Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Council of the 12 Apostles, which, together with the church's three- member First Presidency, exercise the highest level of authority within the 11-million-member church.

   Elder Oaks said the church would not discourage use of the term Mormon for church members, although he said it officially prefers they be known as Latter-day Saints. Nor, he said, will the church seek to change names like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the Mormon Trail and the Book of Mormon. The word Mormon is taken from the book, where it refers both to a geographical area and also to a prophet of that name.

   He said the decision, taken by the First Presidency and the Council of the 12, but not yet announced to church members, needed to be seen in context, as a "deliberate reaffirmation" of a long effort in favor of wider use of the church's full title.

   [...]

6. Wall Street Journal Guide to Business Style and Usage (published 2002; p160): "Mormon is a nickname for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Mormon Church is an acceptable alternative name for the church."
7. The Wall Street Journal. Guide to Business Style and Usage (published 2002): Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Note the Latter-day. The church may be called the Mormon Church in most references, but include the formal name in articles dealing primarily with the church. Don't apply the term Mormon in reference to any polygamous groups or other splinter organization."
8. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (pbk, published 2002; p67): "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In first and later references it may be called by its less formal name, the Mormon Church, so long as its full title appears at least once in any major article about it."
9. UPI Style Book & Guide to Newswriting (published 2004): "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Note the spelling and punctuation of Latter-day. Mormon Church is acceptable in all references. [...] Mormon is not properly applied to the Latter Day Saints churches that split from the main body."
10. The "father of Mormon studies," Leonard J. Arrington, in The Mormon Experience (published by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1979) "I replied that I would be interested in doing so if I could obtain the permission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the correct name of the church often popularly referred to as the Mormon church) to use its archives without restriction."
11. Mormonism: A Historical Encyclopedia (published 2010): ""Published in Palmyra, New York, in the spring of 1830, it is the foundational text of the LDS Church and is the source of its nickname, the Mormon Church."
12. (Ludlow's) Jesus Christ and His Gospel: Selections from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (published by Deseret Book Co., Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, under license from Macmillan Publ. Co., 1994): "The subject of this encyclopedia is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, widely known as the Mormon church. This is the first major encylopedia published about the Mormons. It presents the work of hundreds of Latter-day Saint (LDS) scholars and others throughout the world and provides a comprehensive reporting of Mormon history, scripture, doctrines, life, and knowledge, intended for both the non-Mormon and LDS reader. Readers will find an article on almost any topic conceivably related to the general topic of Mormonism, and yet no article is exhaustive because of space limitiations."
13. I can't even imagine this New Yorker-length story from 2002 without any use of Mormon:

    The New Yorker's extract for the piece reads, "A REPORTER AT LARGE about the Mormon Church, as well as Salt Lake City and the impact of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games."

    It's initial sidebar reads, "When the 2002 Olympic Winter Games open in Utah next month, the world will be greeted by a young, well-scrubbed, and ingratiating religion. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has its headquarters in Salt Lake City, and although its leaders have taken pains to keep the event from being called the Mormon Olympics, they view this as an unprecedented opportunity to make the acquaintance of billions of prospective converts."

14. https://dialoguejournal.com/search/?PHPSESSID=ae71b3fb794e8db948a89ea3dc1c748e&q=%22mormon+church%22&b=SEARCH&PHPSESSID=ae71b3fb794e8db948a89ea3dc1c748e&uss=1&action=search <--Article titles in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought that use the phrase Mormon church

    --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. We have a MOS that current recommends using "LDS Church" as an abbreviation. It works fairly well; I don't see any pressing need to change the recommendation. I don't think the rationale for the recommendation was ever to conform to a preference of the LDS Church itself, since the church would want everyone to start using "the Church of Jesus Christ", which is not going to happen. The rationale was that there are other smaller churches which have adopted the "Mormon Church" label. They are not well known, but this is only a MOS after all, so I see no real harm in recommending the more specific term. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The argument that smaller denominations call themselves and are called the Mormon Church is unsupported. Instead, the sources, including the prestigious ones cited above, can only support that it is specifically the CoJCoLdS denomination that calls itself and is called the Mormon Church. As for the relatively more minor issues within your comment:

- I certainly have no problem with the LDS Church shorthand on Wikipedia or anywhere else.

- On a philosophical point: of course, theologically, the church obviously believes itself to be The Church of Jesus Christ, of latter-day saints, just as the New Testament church, according to Mormon beliefs, was The Church of Jesus Christ, of former-day saints. And, whereas, the church could probably change its most common moniker to being the Church of Jesus Christ if it wanted (indeed, as Oakes points out to the New York Times, the only other denomination that even comes close to using this exact term is the Mormons' distant cousin denominations, the Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ), it appears to be not that important to the LDS to change to that specific moniker so I agree it appears unlikely to happen any time soon.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"The argument that smaller denominations call themselves and are called the Mormon Church is unsupported". Er, I don't think so. There are numerous examples of this being done, they are just not well known. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Good Ol'factory said (emphasis mine): "There are numerous examples of this being done, they are just not well known."

Xactly. I'm talking about the preponderance of current sources.

"Semantics Я kul!.......... "

I'm sympathetic to efforts made to accomodate strange verbal formulations found within anomalous circumstances.

In the Old South up to the turn of the 20th C., in various jurisdictions, the legal terms Negro and Colored people were applied to full-blooded so-called "American Indians" as well as to individuals who possessed one-eighth or more (sometimes one-sixteenth, sometimes one-fourth, etc., etc.) Negroid ancestry. If, per chance, South Pacific Islanders or people from the Southern India were to be found living there, somehow, they would be legally classed as Negro, too. Does this fact affect the American lexicography circa the 1950s when Negro = "indentifiably black African&thins;– American"? It doesn't. Indeed, does Jawal Nga's and Lara Logan's status as being Libyan-American and White South African – American, respectively, mean that they should semantically be classed as African-American, according to the use of this collective proper noun in 2010?

What the writer(s) of the MOS did was (1) observe the the Mormon Church is no longer used in formal writing. (2) Theorize that the reason for this is because of the fact that some Mormons are plyg and not members of the LDS Church. It is a reasonable mistake to make. It is just historically wrong, that's all.

Observe that there numerous examples of LDS being used in reference to those not members of the Mormon Church. Type in "fundamentalist LDS Church" and "LDS movement" into Wikipedia's search bubble and see what you get. I could go to Google Books and get beaucoup instances where LDS stands for "Latter Day Saints," as capitalized and referring to all denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement and not limited to so-called mainstream, Utah-based Mormons. Does that mean LDS ≠ "the CoJCoLdS"? That would be a reasonable determination. It simply would not be supported by the preponderance of current sources. AKA: wd vio wp:SYNTH.

Let's say that editors had contributed the following text to the manual page. (Note: I made this up, substituting the wording LDS Church for where the wording Mormon Church exists in the existing page and vice versa.)

Use of the initialism LDS: The term LDS should be used to refer to Latter Day Saint movement adherents only in the following situations:
In reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, this denomination opposes the use of the term LDS Church, a term that should not be used in Wikipedia articles in any case, since there are several churches that could be described as a "LDS church". When referring to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the nickname Mormon Church is more accurate than LDS Church, and is therefore preferred.

My reaction to such text would be to say:

Please change this to reflect the preponderance of current sources.
- a. Either delete the cherry-picked reference to the fact that that the CoJCoLdS dislikes the term LDS Church or else include the fact that the CoJCoLdS doesn't like Mormon Church, as well.
- b. Add that the LDS Church is a common abbreviated form for the CoJCoLdS.
- c. Add that whereas various citations garnered from Google Books show that sometimes LDS stands for adherents of various denominations among the Latter Day Saint movement, the vast majority of citations have it standing only for members of the CoJCoLdS.
- d. Find a convincing source for the argument that the term LDS Church is ambiguous and bring it to the talkpage. Then combine it with the sourcing for item (b.) above and make some comment about this lexicographical complication in the mainspace of the guideline; otherwise, let's drop the debatable contention.
- d. Add that Wikipedia nevertheless uses LDS Church in the specific context of the CoJCoLdS per its utility as a short-form proper noun.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"I'm talking about the preponderance of current sources." OK, but there is a significant different between something being "unsupported" (what you initially said—which I take to mean "not supported by sources, full stop"—and the issue not even being considered by a majority of sources, which is what is the case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes Mormon means member of a fundamentalist (Brighamite) Saints family group or church, as in this current article in Religioscope and likely the Oxford University Press -published book reviewed. But the phrase the Mormon church invariably references the dominant Brighamite denomination of the CoJCoLdS, as in [ this] current news item published by MSNBC:

[Lede: "...]Patrick Hiltbrand[...]survived the deluge in the upper floor of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the small town of Tagajo." [... Graf 3]: "For members of the Mormon church, going on 'mission' is a rite of passage."

Thus the bottom line is that the proper noun phrase the Mormon church equals the proper noun phrase the LDS Church per English usage today.

Media entities break ground with their style books all the time; and, Wikipedia is a media entity, so we can do the same--especially in the service of practicality and clarity. But doing so should simply be through our coming out and stating that is what we are doing...we shouldn't misstate a disfavored phrase's accepted current and historical meaning. WP editors appear to disfavor the phrase the Mormon Church altogether, despite the fact that BigTime newspapers' stylebooks do not disfavor it. Why not!?...Wikipedia is allowed! But, let's state our preference in terms of practicality and not in terms drawn from usage within the English language at large, which-it-inn't!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of how the terms are commonly used, but your statement that "the Mormon church" "invariably" refers to the LDS Church is not correct if by "invariably" you mean "in every case", because as I mentioned above, there are aberrant instances, though they are not common or well known. Usually or almost always would be more accurate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sourced, in Wikipedia speak, means "referenced in a Wiki article or brought to the talkpage." I don't mind theorizing about hypotheticals but at some point somebody's gotta utilize Google Books or visit a brick-and-mortar library or whatever and see if s/he can locate a single published source, or even a handful of them, containing the exact term the Mormon Church to refer to a denomination that isn't the CoJCoLdS. Yet, until someone finds even just one such reference, I reserve the Wiki right to use the term invariably to characterize the use I documented in the list of sources above. If one is found, I will gladly start saying primarily instead of invariably.

Here are six current Google Book results that use "fundamentalist Mormon church"; however, note that only three of them use the fundamentalist Mormon church and none of them use the unqualified phrase the Mormon Church. (Incidentally, one of the three results for "the fundamentalist Mormon Church" relates to that phrase used by Sonia Johnson in 1987 to reference "the fundamentalist CoJCoLdS," in the sense of "patriarchal" and the like.) --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a number of tracts here from various minor Latter Day Saint sects. One says, "Come and see the 'real' Mormon Church!". Another says "We are the Mormon Church established by Joseph Smith in 1830." Another says, "... many have been deceived by the Utah followers of Brigham Young, who claim to be the true Mormon Church. What increasing numbers are discovering today, however, is that the Mormon Church never actually left Missouri and is still found in Independence, the site Joseph Smith identifed [sic] as the center place of Zion." I'm happy to provide any information about these that someone wants, but because they would not be regarded as things to use as sourcing in Wikipedia, I hardly think it's worthwhile. You will not find these pamphlets on google books, nor will you probably find them in your local library. But I do have them and thus they do exist. Sometimes it's helpful to take other users' word for it that there is information in actual existence that may be beyond our immediate reach. The term "Mormon Church" is almost always used to refer to the LDS Church. But no, it's not "invariably" used in that way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Invariably in reliable sources, then?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps so, though when the word "invariably" is used it becomes a debatable point. For instance, this Sunstone article about a breakaway sect from the LDS Church is entitled "The Manti Mormons: The Rise of the Latest Mormon Church". Because it is possible to refer to the generic "Mormon churches" in this way, COGDEN's comment below makes sense to me—the best reason to have the MOS recommend using "LDS Church" is the problem with using the word the with "Mormon Church", since that may be construed to imply that there is only one Mormon church. If I'm not mistaken, that was essentially the Utah media's rationale for the original invention of the abbreviation "LDS Church". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Mormon is essentially an informal term and it's more respectful to allude to the Latter-day Saints designation that the church professes. (Thus, the Utah media's and the Saints' themselves' "LDS" abbreviation is simply a shorhand way to indicate that form or that of the full name of the church. For the same reason of "shorthanding" as the U.S. media abbreviated in the sixties of JFK and RFK, etc., and the MN media abbreviates nowadays TPal. The thing is, serious Mormon studies scholars refer to Latter Day Saint polygamists using that more formal and respectful language, just as well as mainstream LDS prefer, thus the initialism LDS has historically applied to the fundamentalists just as readily as the term Mormon has. Your and COgden's point of view about a certain amount of ambiguity being applicable to the nickname Mormon has validity. (IOW, let's say that matter is agreed.) But, what I believe to be perfectly clear is that the expressions "the Mormon Church" and "the LDS Church" are equally suspect, for the same rationale COgden has given.

I can think of some potential compromise language that would accommodate the research I've presented. Do you yourself have any suggestions, sir?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that "Mormon Church" and "LDS Church" are equally problematic. I think on balance "LDS Church" is to be preferred, as the MOS currently states. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Good Ol'facory, if I have been repetitive, it is because I have to keep repeating that I myself think a preference for "the LDS Church" over "the Mormon Church" is fine and can stand. My complaint is about the inaccuracies noted. I'm going to refrain to respond to your non-arguments though and will simply suggest the text I think will improve the manual, in a new section below. (Not today, cos yuuv got me riled! arggghhhh)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In my previous comment, was specifically responding to your comment immediately above "that the expressions 'the Mormon Church' and 'the LDS Church' are equally suspect", not to your overall proposals for the manual. I don't agree that they are equally suspect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Various fixes to currently existing manual page

- a. Remove mention of the church's preference it not be called the Mormon Church, per its being misleading (as, to avoid cherry picking, IMO, this properly should only be mentioned if mention is also given of the church's preference to not be called the LDS Church).
- b. Add that, nonetheless, the Mormon Church is a longtime, informal appellation for the CoJCoLDS.
- c. Add that whereas Encyclopædia Britannica and The Encyclopedia of American Religions refer to additional Latter Day Saint denomination members as Mormon, the vast majority of prestigious reference works specify that this term should most properly apply only to members of the CoJCoLDS.
- d. Source on the talkpage the argument that the Mormon Church is ambiguous, due to the fact that much smaller denominations than the CoJCoLdS believe themselves, variously and theologically speaking, to be "the true, non-apostate Mormons," in whatever context. Then, mention this source in the manual, balanced with the sources that support item (b.) above. Otherwise, let's lose it.

- e. Add that the Mormon Church, in reference to the CoJCoLdS, is not used on Wikipedia, except in directly quoted material, due the term's imprecision and, more so, its informality.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the reference to the LDS style guide, as ultimately we have independent reasons for our policy here on Wikipedia. To the extent that the LDS Church press office seeks changes that are either widely ignored by journalists, or do not square with WP:NPOV, I think we can safely ignore them. In particular, any designation that implicitly recognizes the LDS Church as the Jesus' One True Church is not allowable under WP:NPOV.

Of the two remaining neutral designations, LDS Church and Mormon Church, I think the reason for preferring the former has little to do with the LDS Church's preference (after all, the LDS Church itself uses the term "Mormon Church" on occasion--see the home page of mormon.org), and more to do with the fact that using the term the Mormon Church could be construed to imply that there is only one Mormon church. The problem is not in the word Mormon or church, but in the word the. COGDEN 00:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

^Y diff - Per COgden's agreement--and Good Ol'factory's ostensible neutrality with regard to the question--I've deleted reference to one of preferences within the church's styleguide.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In review of the sources brought to Talk to-date, there is a '96 Sunstone mag uses the expression "the latest Mormon church" and in a '09 article appearing in the Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion, Vol. 1 can be found, "There are several smaller offshoots, including a fundamentalist LDS church, recently in the news from a controversy involving polygamy and marriage of underage girls." Indeed, both citations concern Latter Day Saint churches unaffiliated with the mainstream LDS / "Mormons."

Questions

• COgden and Good Ol'factory, can either of you provide a Mormon studies scholarship or a journalistic style guide reference that also makes the specific "Mormon church ≠ CoJCoLS" observation? If so, and no reference is provided for the parallelly specific "LDS church ≠ CoJCoLS" observation, then a basis will have become established to favor the one over the other.
• This lacking, what is the basis for such a distinction in the WP style manual? Note that if it is proposed to be, say, per a wp:SYNTHY analysis of Google hits, it will be seen, for example, that (1) the Google News archive search parameter nets 15 hits for the exact expression "fundamentalist Mormon church" whereas "fundamentalist LDS church" nets all of about 1,840 results. (2) The default (that is, current) Google News search parameter produces one result for "fundamentalist Mormon church" versus two results for "fundamentalist LDS church." (3) And a Google Books search nets less than a half-dozen results for "fundamentalist Mormon church" (discounting the once instance representing a pithy turn of phrase by Sonia Johnson referencing the mainstream church) versus a dozen for "fundamentalist LDS church."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note - In the interest of seeking as many eyes and hands as possible to look again at this manual page, I've sent the following notice to folks who have edited this page:<quote>Per wp:CANVASSING, this is a neutrally worded notice being sent, without any type of "selection" bias, to everyone that edited fairly recently the MOS page about how to term the Latter Day Saints denominations on Wikipedia in the belief that your various and collective expertise or expertises, if that's a plural, can help us improve its wording, if possible. a bit. The most pertinent section is here. And the issue is to what degree the terms "Mormon church" and "LDS church" relate to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in specific, and to what kind of sourcing should be used to document this. Thanks, if you find time and the interest to look into the matter and offer your opinion or commentary.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding term "LDS"

Ephemera known to Mormon studies scholars such as concerning the distinction in orthography between Latter-day Saint and Latter Day Saint cannot be expected to be known by an average encyclopedia reader. Therefore, each use of either term should be completely understandable through context.

The manual's statement: "The terms LDS, LDS Church, and Latter-day Saint (Latter-day hyphenated, with lower-case "d") generally refer only to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"--can refer to the term Mormon, just as well. After all, the abbreviation LDS is often used to reference Latter Day Saint. Indeed, below are shown scores of uses of LDS in published sources where the term does not reference solely the CoJCoLdS.

• There are over 150 Google Books results for "LDS movement," referencing the Latter Day Saint movement.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• September 15 , 2002, NYTimes headline: ""Years May Pass before Fundamentalist LDS Name Successor to Jeffs"
• Google Books currently shows 12 results for "fundamentalist LDS church."

Click "Show" to see.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2009: the Fundamentalist LDS Church (FLDS), has split into several polygamist cults 2007: the Fundamentalist LDS Church have retained Polygamy as a standard of social organization 2005: Splinter Mormon-faith groups, such as the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), the Fundamentalist LDS Church (FLDS Church) 2008: Barlow has pledged his allegiance to Fundamentalist LDS Church leader Warren Jeffs 2010: the Fundamentalist LDS Church led by various members of the Jeffs clan 2007: the Fundamentalist LDS Church, now the largest of the various polygamist sects in the western United States 2001: the Fundamentalist LDS Church, headquartered in Colorado City, Arizona 2007: the breakaway Fundamentalist LDS Church and their contemporary practice of polygamy 2006: 'The Fundamentalist LDS Church: Meanwhile, in 1986 the First Warders in Colorado City were led by council members Leroy Johnson and Rulon Jeffs 2009: There are several smaller offshoots, including a fundamentalist LDS church, recently in the news from a controversy involving polygamy and marriage of underage girls 2007: The Fundamentalist LDS Church... Plus a use in Religions of the world: a comprehensive encyclopedia of beliefs ...: Volume 3 (2002)

• Seven more results for "fundamentalist LDS":

Click "Show" to see.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2009 : "The LDS officials want to have people stop associating LDS and Fundamentalist LDS...." 2003 (Davies' An Introduction to Mormonism): "The real significance of fundamentalist LDS groups lies in their identification of crucial theological ideas as a form of inner-sectarian protest." 1979 (American Writers): "... Krakauer met a young man in Utah who had been raised as a member of the fundamentalist LDS sect that he had written about. Tom Sam had been ejected from the community at the age of...." 2010 (Fodor's Utah): "The faith has drawn increased attention in recent years, with the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney, a huge increase in tourism since the 2002 Winter Olvmpics, the arrest of Fundamentalist LDS leader Warren Jeffs, and the HBO show...." 2006 (The Advocate): "Most of the polygamists that I've found in my research are very firm believers in the fundamentalist LDS religion, and that is not a very pro-gay atmosphere" 1998: "My brother Jeffrey Miller supplied accounts of Utah fundamentalist LDS communal life." 2008 (Journal of Mormon History, vol.34): "Fundamentalist LDS prophet Warren Jeffs was, for a time, Number One on the FBI's most-wanted list."

• "Polygamous LDS", referencing non-CoJCoLdS:

2 results.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Religion in the Modern American West (2002): "Eccentric polygamous LDS groups in Arizona or isolated communities in the Colorado...." Travelers' tales, American Southwest (2001): "the deputy in Colorado City, Arizona, a polygamous LDS [Latter Day Saints] settlement hard up against the Utah border"

• "LDS polygamists," referencing non-CoJCoLdS:

Click to see.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2006: "Ever since 1904, the mainstream LDS Church has disavowed.... However, isolated Mormonh sects...remain, including.... The exact number of LDS polygamists is the subject of great controversy...."

• "LDS fundamentalist":

4 results
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1986: "There are several LDS fundamentalist groups in Utah and the surrounding areas which continue the practice of polygamy." 1988: "In the past decade it has reappeared as the major tenet of an undetermined number of LDS fundamentalist sects with a total membership estimated between 3,000 and 20,000." 2006 (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol.39): Brian C. Hales, '"I Have Been Fanatically Religious': Joseph White Musser, Father of the LDS Fundamentalist Movement," paper delivered at the Mormon History Association annual meeting, May 1992, St. George, Utah. Also a use in Philip L. Barlow, Mormons and the Bible: the place of the Latter-Day Saints in American religion, Oxford University Press (1991)

• "LDS Fundamentalism":

2 results
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2002 (America, history and life: Volume 39): "Traces the development from the 1930's to the 1 990's of the Short Creek area of southern Utah (now Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Arizona) as a center of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints (LDS) fundamentalism, a fundamentalism marked by polygamy. 1998 (Journal of Mormon History, vol.24): "elsewhere in the world, where LDS fundamentalism is unfamiliar, the questions still serve as warnings against organized dissent"

• "LDS fundamentalists":

6 results
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1997 (How wide the divide?: a Mormon & an Evangelical in conversation): "I grant that some LDS do indulge in speculation on this point (it is a favorite jumping-off place for LDS fundamentalists) — but they go beyond the teaching of the LDS Church and the advice of LDS leaders when they do." 2001: "such a scheme proved extremely helpful in clarifying where the LDS "fundamentalists," ie, those Saints who continue to practice...." 2006: "Most apostate LDS fundamentalists, however, insist that celestial marriage and plural marriage were...." 2007: "...Woolley told LDS Fundamentalists that Wilford Woodruff was not the author...." 2007: "Gardner said that when he examined Mitchell's religious beliefs on their own, apart from Mitchell's behavior, they were not all that uncommon among LDS fundamentalists" 2006 (Dialogue, vol.39): "The activities and identity of the "one mighty and strong" play an immensely important role in the theology and expectations of many followers of the restoration including most LDS fundamentalists today." 1992: "...played quite well to tens of thousands of LDS excommunicants, the men and women who defiantly remain the most fundamental of all LDS fundamentalists, those who live the Principle in these latter days"

The bottom line is that the argument that the Mormon Church is a more ambiguous than the LDS Church has not been substantiated. If it can be said that the term LDS "generally refer[s] only to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," it can also be said that the term Mormon Church generally refers on to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And I never did "LDS polygamy," referencing non-CoJCoLdS.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am not at all clear on why we now have multiple lengthy sections that all are addressing essentially the same issues. It makes it very difficult to have a unified, community discussion of these issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I kvetch - Warning! Complaint ahead.... Good Ol'factory, your scant discussion or argument on this page, to my point of view, has not been a virtue but a failing! In my point of view...which might be biased, of course...I perceive you to have been unnecessarily dismissive to (what I believe to be, anyway...) the substantive issues I've raised. I perhaps should have spent more time in saying that I absolutely think this MOS is very valuable and has some incredibly well-thought-out and useful info in it. And that's actually one reason I've been so careful not to be over-bold in just wading in and making changes that I believe an improvement. Nonetheless it's true that I've brought an extensive amount of explanations and supporting source material here to Talk. Sorry bout that. In any case, Good Ol'factory, this particular subsection pertains to the term LDS, whereas the subsection above pertains to the term "Mormon." Perhaps we can "roll up" or "color" areas where we have reached consensus so far. Unfortunately, since there has been so little discussion so far, I don't know where that might be, yet, though!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think one reason there has been little discussion is the volume of material one may feel obliged to read through. I have read through it, and I'm finding much of it very repetitive and containing information that is either uncontroversial or could easily be summarized. I have held back saying much because I don't want to add to the intimidating nature of what needs to be read through. I know this page is watched by users, but I'm afraid many of them may just be saying "TLDR" to themselves. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The MOS makes certain statements that I believe to be incorrect or overdrawn, i.e., to be controversial. I've addressed these issues in detail with substantive arguments. Your statement just made (and forgive me for discussing your talkpage style rather than WP content or actual editing issues here...) involves such vagaries as "much of it [Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden's argumentation] very repetitive and containing information that is either uncontroversial or could easily be summarized." Although I'm doing my best, if it could be easily summarized, please do so. Where? This isn't rocket science, it's an MOS.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For example, I don't think we necessarily need dozens of examples to illustrate a claim that certain usages do exist. A simple statement that a certain usage exists with one example would be fine, with an accompanying statement that there are several more. Then if the claim faces opposition, we may need to see them all. To encourage participation, I don't think we necessarily need to address issues "in detail" until we find out if others disagree with your arguments. But when we start off with detailed arguments, it's hard to tell who agrees and who doesn't because long posts do not typically promote participation. I'm not trying to poison the waters here, I'm just saying that users may well look at the posts and ask themselves, "where to begin?". I know I have said that to myself, which is part of the reason my posts have been relatively brief. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Once we reach a point of agreement as to what they document, I'll "put a hat on em" and roll them up then. Thanks for the input.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've now come to have at least put "hats" on the "sub-itemizations" in the list of Google Books sources above.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC).

Btw, do you have suggestions as to compromise text for the manual?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I was kind of expecting a text proposal from you that could be discussed, since you have said you're not satisfied with the current text. I don't agree with all of your analysis above, and I doubt it will be easy to get agreement on the underlying principles. I would expect it to be much easier to just get some MOS text that everyone can agree to. It's a MOS and I don't think it needs to contain any in-depth explanations of why it advises what it advises, nor do users need to agree on why it advises what it advises, as long as there is consensus for the advice itself. In that respect, some of the current MOS text is simply, what is the word?—"superfluous". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Good Ol'factory, my suggestion that competing rationales for manual points be presented (eg contasting Encyclopedia Brittanica or The Encyclopedia of American Religions with, say the SLTrib, DesNews, NYT, WSJ, AP, or UPI stylebooks, etc.) was only in case other editors were going to be especially doctrinaire about their preferred linguistic theories. Otherwise, I absolutely agree with your points.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Belated précis. I believe that the MOS should describe the English usage found in scholarly and journalistic sources--as listed here on the talkpage at the top of these subsections: #Regarding term "the Mormon Church" and #Regarding term "LDS" [Note: Please click open all the itemized entries to read cited passages.])--to reflect this formulation:

  "Mormon church" generally = "LDS church" and vice-versa; and:

  "LDS Church" / 'Mormons' generally = "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and vice-versa.

  However, the current version of the MOS prescribes as its being the most appropriate English usage something that can be approximated in the formulation:

  "Mormon church" ≠ "LDS church" and vice versa; and:

  "Mormon church" ≠ "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and vice versa; yet:

  "LDS church" generally = "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and vice versa.

  Nonetheless, I am willing to compromise by allowing both understandings to be presented...or else letting Wikipedia's MOS gently recommend as its stylistic choice the usage it currently prescribes without implying it to be the only English usage acceptable.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. In my opinion, the WP MOS should just recommend stylistic choices, and shouldn't worry too much about discussing its own justification for that choice. That's kind of the purpose of this talk page, but it doesn't need to be relfected in the MOS text. I think it could just say that for WP abbreviation/short-hand purposes, 1. COJCOLDS = "LDS Church"; 2. "Mormon Church" is generally avoided when referring to any Latter Day Saint movement church; 3. Members of any church in the Latter Day Saint movement = "Latter Day Saints"; 4. Members of COJCOLDS = "Latter-day Saints" or "Mormons"; 5. "Mormons" = members of COJCOLDS or members of a Mormon fundamentalist group, but not members of other Latter Day Saint churches; 6. Other appropriate abbreviations also exist for other Latter Day Saint churches: "FLDS Church" = FCOJCOLDS; "RLDS Church" = pre-name-change RCOJCOLDS; "AUB" = Apostolic United Brethren; and so forth. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work, Good Ol'factory!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Good Ol'factory, I've tried to accomplish a part of your suggestions in this edit--> diff--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

diff - Tentative edit, from:

However, this term [i/e, 'Mormon] should not be used in Wikipedia articles, since there are several churches that could be described as a "Mormon church". When referring to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the abbreviation LDS Church is more accurate than Mormon Church, and is therefore preferred.

--to:

However, avoid the informal appellation Mormon church, outside of directly quoted material – following a convention of Utah newspapers, the abbreviation LDS Church is preferred. Members of the LDS Church may accurately be referred to as Latter-day Saints or as Mormons.

Not many editors chiming in here on the talkpage, but to those who have, Whaddya think?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! .!. Work well done. I had intended to mention the style guide (for the press) in LDS.org but I see you have reflected on that already. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Charles, the reason I deleted mention within the MOS of the church's own style guide is because this was the easiest fix. The problem was that the church's style preferences express dislike of short forms Mormon church and LDS church, but WP's style preferences actively encourages use of the latter of the two terms.

However, a less-easy fix would have been to simply mention the church's preferences but also reference or imply a rationale for Wikipedia to ignore, in part, the same. (For example, see the 2001 Salt Lake Tribune news item, "'LDS Church' Still Term Of Choice for Newspapers".)

And, one remaining option would have been for Wikipedia not only to have mentioned the church's style preferences but also to have aligned our style manual into agreement with it--with Wikipedia's suggesting such "work arounds as the Latter-day Saints or Mormon officials--or, simply, the church-- without Wikipedia's recommending any shortened name for the church at all.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I started to wade through this but it is just too much. So far I don't object to any of the changes made; however, I can not endorse whatever changes are being proposed as I don't know what they are. Thus I reserve the right to object once the changes are made to the project page. --Trödel 22:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Trödel, I've already tentatively contributed all the changes I envisioned in this discussion (admittedly TL-DR--sorry).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)