Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:56, 20 January 2021

Latter Day Saint movement Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Section headings change a problem

I see a lot of one-off edits changing section headings that say Mormons or Mormonism and are not about any particular denomination to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". The reasons against doing this are obvious but I don't know how to catch them and I assume that quite a bit of this is being done without being spotted. Any suggestions? And what should such a section heading be? Doug Weller talk 09:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You could watchlist everything that comes up on a search. An edit filter could also catch them but might be overkill. Beware that such changes may break incoming section links: for example if "Mormons and Foo" redirected to Foo#Mormons then it will no longer find the section without an anchor. Certes (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

An edit filter that tags edits removing the words "Mormon" or "LDS" would be effective. From what I've seen, most of these edits are misguided and not an attempt to disrupt Misplaced Pages at all, but they do usually have some unintended side effects with respect to readability, neutrality, and accuracy. Bradv🍁 13:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

The premierey-est day-to-day journalism abt er ah um theCofJCofLDS from a secular perspective being @ the SLC Tribune, it might not be such a terrible practice for WP to follow the Tribune's lead, journalistically speaking, by . . . well, yeah, not to do so w rgd especially historical usages or, say, such things as to so-called Mormon studies/whatnot . . . putting the word Mormon in scare quotes.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Example from CNN: https://www.wptv.com/news/national/why-the-mormon-church-changed-its-name-its-about-revelation-not-rebranding --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

+1 from me Rogerdpack (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Current journalistic stylebooks etc

Links re The Latter-day Saints' new deprecation of terms "Mormon"/"L.D.S." . . .

1. New AP Style guidelines (see SLC Tribune) say to give full name then generally use word church (etc.).
2. Re issue of distinguishing among sect of the movement (Latter-day Saints vis-a-vis other J.S.Jr.-inspired denominations), see SLC Tribune): >>>>>For over a century, the smaller churches of Joseph Smith’s Restoration movement have differentiated themselves by proudly declaring, “We are not Mormon!” It has been a badge of honor of sorts, a way of sticking it to an alleged rival that has converted more people than all the other Restoration churches combined. How on earth are we supposed to differentiate ourselves from the Mormons if they don’t want to be called Mormons either? --- Daniel P. Stone<<<<<
3. OnReligion: "Escaping the M-word: Trying to go back to the Latter-day Saint future"
4. GetReligion: "allow 'Mormon' when it helps readers with that. However the M-word within parentheses with quote marks in first use to signal that’s the universally recognized but unofficial nickname."
5. GetReligion: >>>>>The Tribune’s headline: "LDS Church, de-emphasizing those three letters, unveils a new internet address with more changes on the way." And its lede: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continued its move away from the monikers 'Mormon' and 'LDS' on Tuesday by introducing its new web address."<<<<<
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
6. Columbia Journalism Review:

   ... “In the early days of the restored Church, terms such as Mormon Church and Mormons were often used as epithets—as cruel terms, abusive terms.”

   In this way, the church is joining the tendency for groups to claim their own names rather than the names others people give them, as we have seen with “African American” (instead of “colored,” or “Negro,” or worse), “Latino” (instead of “Hispanic” or “Spanish”), and others.

7. NYT, "‘Mormon’ No More: Faithful Reflect on Church’s Move to Scrap a Moniker": For the Latter-day Saints faithful, a shift away from a longtime name has meant lighthearted screw-ups, logistical complications and reflections on identity:

   "Nelson, the church’s president, said that God had “impressed upon my mind the importance of the name he has revealed for his church.” Church members should no longer call themselves Mormons, or even use the shorthand L.D.S., the church announced. Instead, they should use the church’s full name and refer to themselves as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Or, if they wanted a shorter version, Latter-day Saints was preferred. As he is revered as a living prophet"

   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
8. church says, while discouraged, term Mormon is acceptable. See link.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
9. Reflecting the NYT's current in-house stylebook perhaps?: "here is enough demand for this kind of content to beget a streaming service called Living Scriptures which is geared specifically to Latter-day Saints (the church and its followers no longer refer to themselves as Mormons)."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
10. Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – its members are trying to move away from the word 'Mormon.'"--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
11. AP: "A recent push by church President Russell M. Nelson to eradicate the use of previously embraced shorthand terms for the faith — 'Mormon,' 'LDS' and 'Mormon church' — has added an interesting wrinkle to the discussion, said W. Paul Reeve, the Simmons Professor of Mormon Studies at the University of Utah."
12. Time: "the LDS church, formerly known as the Mormon church"--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
13. WSJ: "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, colloquially known as the Mormon Church"--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

As we see, Mormon is discouraged and Latter-day Saint (or in its variant capitalization within eg "the Latter Day Saint movement") preferred by the LDS Church; and the style books have caught up with this fact.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

+1, the style guides have "caught up" to the Church's (LOL) request for how it be identified. Especially for instances that refer to the church itself (mainline The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and members. Rogerdpack (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that when it comes to the name of the church our own styleguide is also "up to date". It explicitly discourages the use of Mormon church, saying that the term should only be used in direct quotations. ~Awilley (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The wikipedia styleguide mentions the "abbreviation LDS" and "LDS Church" I'd like to propse to bring inline with the mainstream Church's style guide :) Rogerdpack (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Quick comment from me here: If you go back and reread the style guide, and Nelson's comments on the adjustments, you'll quickly realize that the new style guide put out by the Church was intended for media representatives only. I have not found anything that would categorically verify that online encyclopedias such as this one are beng urged to follow that style, at least not at this time. Could that change? Of course. In the interim, for Misplaced Pages, we do need and will want to take a smart approach to any such changes. There are literally hundreds of articles using the parenthetical LDS Church submoniker, so unless there was a way to switch them all at once, or to switch more than one at a time, resolving this issue would literally take weeks, and require cooperative efforts from a group of editors working in tandem to bring all such articles up to date. :With that in mind, what I keep coming back to is the question of whether or not any such changes are actually necessary. And as inclined as I am in general to listen to a man I consider to be a prophet of the Lord in most cases, as a Misplaced Pages editor trying to balance that faith with a neutrality of attitude about topics related to the CHurch which I assist in editing, I need to be more measured and reasonble in my personal approach on such matters.

And in that sennse, I fully believe that referencing the full name of the Church on the first mention thereof satisfies the requirements of those revised guidelines to a significant enough degree that using the parenthetical LDS Church moniker, which is still commonly used in public settings such as this, would not be see as problematic as far as the guidelines go. Of course, unless and until President Nelson offers an opinion on this matter, that is no more and no less than my own opinion. And in the meantime, Misplaced Pages is not governed by suggestions or recommendations from the Church, but by rules that are meant to ensure stylistic consistency that lends itself to readears being able to find informative content in the most easy way possible. IMHO, take away the LDS moniker, and some may get lost trying to find the content they are loking for. FWIW, that's my two cents on this matter at this time. --Jgstokes (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jgstokes. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

1. I recommend a change be made to the Latter Day Saints MOS so it aligns with the official Style Guide — The Name of the Church of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which specifies: “While the term ‘Mormon Church’ has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use. Thus, please avoid using the abbreviation ‘LDS’ or the nickname ‘Mormon’ as substitutes for the name of the Church, as in ‘Mormon Church,’ ‘LDS Church,’ or ‘Church of the Latter-day Saints’” . Other recent statements that support this recommended change include this one from President Russell M. Nelson: “Our revised style guide is helpful. It states: ‘In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.’ When a shortened reference is needed, the terms ‘the Church’ or the ‘Church of Jesus Christ’ are encouraged. The ‘restored Church of Jesus Christ’ is also accurate and encouraged’”. In response to Jgstokes, who indicated above that President Nelson’s comments on the official Style Guide “was intended for media representatives only” is not found in his recent General Conference talk titled The Correct Name of the Church. In fact, he encourages all people within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and those who are not members to follow the Style Guide. As a Misplaced Pages editor, I am more than willing to help put in the several-week effort to help update the Misplaced Pages references to align with the official Style Guide. Apikssurvey (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A recent study by the church supports using the full name of the church on first mention. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): We already use the full name of the church on first mention. And our manual of style has supported that from day one. Literally. On the day it was created in 2005 link it stated: Reference The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by full name first reference...and "the Church" or "LDS Church" thereafter. That sentence has since been expanded into a full section at Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Latter_Day_Saints#Full_name_of_denomination_in_first_reference. ~Awilley (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Full disclosure before I proceed: I am a believing, practising member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I am committed to the idea that this church, its beliefs, and its members should be dealt with on Misplaced Pages in a balanced and evenhanded manner, in keeping with the Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). This means, in my view, that we must do everything possible to treat the Latter-day Saints and their church neutrally — not writing either a missionary tract or an "anti" screed. This may (and, I suspect, does) require us to be prepared to write things somewhat differently than we would if we were writing a "Come, Follow Me" lesson.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is almost certainly OK on the first reference to the Church (again, I'll just say "the Church" here for brevity, you here all know what I mean) in an article. As for subsequent references, "the Church" may be OK when the context is clear and it's obviously not going to be perceived as biased for the Church and/or against other churches. "Mormon Church" can and should probably be replaced by something else now, except of course in direct quotations that use this phrase. The other currently, officially encouraged phrases are probably too non-neutral to be acceptable for Misplaced Pages (again, except when quoting something that uses them).

"LDS Church" is problematic. On the one hand, the Church's current leadership has urged everyone (both within and without) to stop using this term. On the other hand, however, many (most?) secular publishers are continuing to use it (at least in second/subsequent references), probably because there simply isn't any other short phrase that isn't unacceptably non-specific, POV, or (in the case of "Mormon Church") no-better-so-why-bother. For practical purposes, we may very possibly have no realistic option but to continue accepting and using "LDS Church". I'll change my position and doggedly fight the use of this term to my last breath if The Brethren unequivocally demand it, but since that would most likely lead to my being blocked/banned from Misplaced Pages for unrepentant disruptive editing, I would in this case probably simply avoid the issue by ceasing to edit any Church-related article in any way (not even to correct nasty mistakes or outright slander).

As for members of the Church, "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is simply too long for anyone (especially non-members) to be expected to write, except possibly in some first-reference situations where the Church itself hasn't already been so identified. As far as I know, the Church leadership doesn't (yet) object to our being called (or calling ourselves) "Latter-day Saints", so this may be the best term to use. "Mormons" should probably be phased out (just like "Mormon Church"); same with "LDS"; but we're going to have to accept the fact that many readers simply do not know who we are except via the label "Mormons" (big reason, I know, why The Brethren want us to stop using it), and we may find it advisable to let things pass such as "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also widely known as 'Latter-day Saints' or 'Mormons')".

Regarding our belief system, it's likely to be well-nigh impossible to totally eliminate "Mormonism", for the simple reason that there is no other ultra-short monicker available (other than "the Gospel" or "the restored Gospel", which are blatantly and unashamedly POV and just won't be accepted by Wikipedians in general). Possible alternatives might be "Latter-day Saint beliefs" or "Church teachings" (again, using the latter only when the context makes it unambiguous).

The issue of parenthetical qualifiers in article titles unavoidably leads us into complicated historical matters. The Church's official name hasn't always been exactly the same (e.g., the name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", in any capitalization or punctuation, is anachronistic if applied to anything or anyone prior to 1838). Also, because of various schisms and factions, it is often essential to distinguish whether someone or something pertains to all the churches which claim a connection to Joseph Smith, or just a portion thereof; see the table in MOS:LDS#Basic_gloss, and remember that, in the world's eyes, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "just another one" of a bunch of churches, each of which claims to be the sole rightful inheritor of the Prophet's legacy.

So, in summary: This question is extremely complicated (it encompasses a lot more than the present-day Church), and it is totally impractical (probably no matter how much faith we exercise) to get the world in general, or the Misplaced Pages community in particular, to obey President Nelson's counsel with exactness on this matter at this time. I would strongly advise everyone who still thinks major overhauls are necessary to carefully and thoroughly read the entire style page MOS:LDS, and seek to understand everything it says before you summarily reject it all because you think it should simply be replaced with President Nelson's October 2018 General Conference address.

For those of you who may be unconvinced, question my faithfulness, and feel you are obligated to expunge all the officially deprecated terms ASAP no matter what anyone else thinks, I will leave you with a warning: You will be opposed, reverted, and (if you persist) most likely blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages entirely as a result of what will be perceived as disruption, "edit warring", "persistent NPOV violations", "obviously not here to build an encyclopedia", etc., etc. — and then we will end up being deprived of the worthwhile contributions you could have made here. If this happens to you, btw, don't even think of sneaking back in under a brand-new, undeclared account (sockpuppetry), or of recruiting your friends to carry on with your righteous quest (meatpuppetry), because you (and, if applicable, your friends) will be found out and your efforts will have been in vain.

If, after all the above, you are convinced that you must rid Misplaced Pages of gross sin in this matter, my advice is to contact the Wikimedia Foundation (WP:WMF) and try to make your case to them. I say this because the WMF is the only group of people with any authority to override the NPOV policy (via what they call an "office action"), and anyone else you might contact (even the Arbitration Committee) will point you to WP:NPOV and say there is nothing to discuss. Keep in mind that the WMF has undoubtedly already heard (and rejected) all of the arguments here, and/or arguments which they consider equally (in)valid coming from adherents of other faiths, political views, and such, so an appeal to the WMF will almost certainly be an utter waste of your time and theirs, but I'd rather see you appeal to the WMF and get turned down than try to wage an edit war / sockpuppet attack / etc. and get shown the door forever.

— Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you probably posted this as a general explanation for the many users making edits to pages to remove "LDS". In case it wasn't clear, I currently agree with shortening to "LDS Church" after the church's full name is stated. I think that "Mormon" is useful for cultural topics like folklore and literature. I posted the link to contribute to the general information listed in this subtopic. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

References

1. "Style Guide — The Name of the Church". The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Retrieved 10 April 2020.
2. Nelson, Russell M. (2018). "The Correct Name of the Church". Retrieved 10 April 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Consistency in naming conventions for articles (Mormon) vs. (Latter Day Saint)

Right now the MOS states that articles needing disambiguation use the parenthetical (Mormon) (i.e. John W. Taylor (Mormon) and George Reynolds (Mormon)). In doing an unscientific survey, I'd say most articles use the parenthetical (Latter Day Saints) (i.e.

@Epachamo: The naming conventions are at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints), so discussion of changes should probably take place on that talk page, not here. If you look at that page I think you'll see that there's a method to the madness. The disambiguator "Latter Day Saints" applies to people before the schism in 1844, while "Mormon" applies to the branch that followed Brigham Young. "Latter Day Saints" is a broader term that refers to the more general Latter Day Saint movement. ~Awilley (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Awilley: While it is definitely appropriate to use the term "Latter Day Saint" to refer to the larger movement (as well as individuals who are relevant thereunto), I'm not sure that anyone is taking issue with this. The problem is that referring to Christians as "Mormons" ignores the fact that doing so is like referring to people of African descent as "Niggers". Both are bigoted slurs, designed to dehumanize those on the receiving end of the moniker. The fact that some people use these terms to refer to themselves doesn't make it appropriate to do so generally. The request is that we update the MOS to use accurate, POV-neutral terminology, so those of us who have spent decades working to eliminate these slurs won't keep having our edits reverted because a random MOS page recommends it. TheOtter (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheOtter: What an ugly false equivalence. Mormons have not suffered nearly the level of discrimination as black people. Sure, there was a lot of discrimination and disenfranchisement in the 1800s, but at least the Mormons who were ejected from their homes in Missouri and Nauvoo had the right to own homes in the first place. There's an order of magnitude difference between losing your property vs. being considered property. The Mormons were largely left alone after they fled to the Utah Territory, but slaves were hunted no matter where they fled. And the term "Mormon" has more positive connotations than negative. You say it's a bigoted slur, but Gordon B. Hinckley said it meant "More Good" and started a nearly decade-long multinational advertising campaign to reclaim the word. ~Awilley (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Awilley: Your opinion is noted, but I must respectfully disagree. Property or not, killing a "Nigger" was still a punishable crime; conversely, killing a "Mormon" was a "moral imperative." Until the 1970s, a person could actually be arrested in the state of Missouri for not killing a "Mormon". If that's a false equivalence, it's only because "Niggers" had it better than "Mormons". I don't support slavery in the least, but at least a slave's heartbeat wasn't inherently illegal.

Of course, I recognize that Gordon B. Hinckley's (and others') thoughts on the subject are not my own, and they have just as much right to an opinion as I. But by that argument, we should also use the word "Nigger" because people like Ice-T and Kendrick Lamar are okay with it. Are you honestly arguing that bigoted terms are okay, as long as you can find someone who isn't offended by them?

I repeat: the noun "Mormon" (as opposed to the personal name "Mormon") is a slur that has no place in civilized society. It frankly amazes me that anyone would think such charged language be appropriate for a supposedly neutral encyclopedia. TheOtter (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

the word "revelations"

How should this be used so that it meets WP:NPOV? I'd like to be pinged if there's an answer, I'm finding it hard to keep up. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I favor formulations along the lines of:

"Joseph Smith said he received a revelation instructing him to..."

or

"Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was guided by God through revelations"

or

Joseph Smith dictated a revelation to Oliver Cowdery."

Presenting it as something that someone said or wrote or believes satisfies NPOV in my opinion. I'm even ok with the second paragraph of Doctrine and Covenants which, even though it flat out says the book is a "compilation of revelations", I think it's clear enough from the context of the surrounding sentences and paragraphs that we're not explicitly endorsing the authenticity of the "revelations". I think the same argument goes for the word "Vision". We obviously can't say things like

"Joseph Smith had a vision"

in Misplaced Pages's voice, but at the same time it's not necessary to say that

"Joseph Smith purportedly had a vision"

or

"Joseph Smith claimed he had a vision"

Just write that he

"said he had a vision"

or

"wrote that he had a vision"

This is largely per WP:SAID. For an outside example of this see https://www.britannica.com/biography/Isaiah which says,

"The earliest recorded event in life is his call to prophecy as now found in the sixth chapter of the Book of Isaiah; this occurred about 742 bce. The vision (probably in the Jerusalem Temple) that made him a prophet is described in a first-person narrative. According to this account he “saw” God and was overwhelmed by his contact with the divine glory and holiness." (emphasis mine)

I think there's also an argument for treating obvious matters of religious belief like we do fiction. We don't need to say in the context of a plot summary that

"Frodo purportedly took the ring to Mount Doom"

Does that answer the question? ~Awilley (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Awilley: I should have mentioned that the article is Cunning Folk Traditions and the Latter Day Saint Movement. Am I right in thinking that it needs a bit of rewriting? Doug Weller talk 18:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The style guide needs to be updated

The current style guide is wrongheaded and clearly written with bias against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The attempts to limit the full name use of the restored Church of Jesus Christ to only one full name reference in a long article are unacceptable. The use of anything other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in parenthetical references to things connected with the Church is also unacceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"LDS Church" is still widely used as a parenthetical reference for later mentions. Last I checked it was still acceptable in styleguides for major news organizations. Misplaced Pages's job is to follow the usage in reliable sources like that, not lead. And calling it "the restored Church of Jesus Christ" is clearly unacceptable for Misplaced Pages, where we're required to write from a neutral point of view. ~Awilley (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Johnpacklambert's statements are unhelpful. First of all, he doesn't assume good faith in saying that the guidelines are written with bias against the church in question. Second, he doesn't explain why limiting the full name of the church to the first instance only is "unacceptable", and he also does not explain why using parentheticals other than the complete name of the church is "unacceptable". If reasons are provided, they could be discussed, but I don't see any here apart from assumptions of bad faith. Good Ol’factory 02:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• If we are referring to an organization we should use the name that it has requested that people use to refer to it. It can be done. Amos Brown clearly showed this in speaking to the NAACP. We should respect the requests of organizations on how they self identify. That is clearly not being done here. Especially when people are using 8 year old articles to justify current usage in the face of very major changes 2 years ago. Organizations should be identified by the monikers they themselves use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It sounds like your underlying concern is with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. In any case, if we're talking about disambiguating terms, the church's preferences for a short form—"the Restored Church of Jesus Christ", "the Church of Jesus Christ", or "the Church"—are neither commonly used nor without a built-in POV. In my opinion, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is simply too long to be a disambiguator. "LDS Church" and "Mormon" are commonly used and fairly well understood terms. Good Ol’factory 01:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I do think the style guide as it stands is quite complicated and hard to understand. I've been using it for a number of years and sometimes I am still unsure about what proper usage is. For one, the distinction between "Latter Day Saints" and "Latter-day Saints" is far too subtle to be useful in an encyclopedia. The style guide also suggests avoiding the use of "Mormon" for Community of Christ topics since that church objects to its use. Well, now so does TCOJCOLDS, but usage is so commonly entrenched in secondary sources for TCOJCOLDS, especially for historical topics, that it's hard for me to see how WP can move away from it. Now that the TCOJCOLDS also objects to "LDS Church", we have a problem. We can't use the abbreviated forms TCOJCOLDS suggests because they are ambiguous and POV. We could use "TCOJCOLDS", but that is not widely used in secondary sources. We can't use the full name of the church on each mention because it is too long. I don't know what the solution is, but I suspect we will keep using "LDS Church" for lack of a better alternative, even if it is considered offensive somehow. Good Ol’factory 03:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: What Johnpacklambert is also failing to consider is that while individual organizations and entites can use the full name of the Church in every instances, the actual guidelines as released by the updated manual of style for the Church is that the full name is prefferred, (not mandated) on the first reference, and that after that first reference, there are acceptable abbreviated terms that can be used. Also, in initial comments relative to these updated guidelines (again, not actual mandates) indicated that they were intended for references to the Church and its' members when used by the media. To assume or assert that guidelines principally intended for media mentions of the church should be applied to an online encyclopedia to the same degree would in turn lead some to assume or assert that applying those guidelines liberally and emphatically in every mentione to the name of the church here was at the height of personal arrogance. I don't see anyone in the Church hierarchy who has specifically challenged the continued usage of the volume known as the Enclopedia of Mormonism, nor can I find any instance where the Church has firmly stated that the guidelines released almost two years ago should be applied here on Misplaced Pages, especially to the degree that Johnpacklambert has asserted should be the case. I know that this issue being raised again was done in good faith, and I won't dispute or deny that. But suggesting that guidelines initially released for intended usage by media organizations should be used to a similar or more liberal degree here on Misplaced Pages is unwise. Could the Misplaced Pages Manuals of Styles use some adjustments when it comes to articles about the Church use some adjustments? Sure. But there are other more effective ways than an all-or-nothing strict approach that may not be in harmony with or applicable to the reommendations themselves. And I'm saying that as someone who, on a very personal level, accepts the updated manual of style as prophetic and long overdue. Take from this comment whatever you will. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: While I do feel that Johnpacklambert's initial statement comes off as somewhat combative, I think that others in this thread are also failing to consider a very important factor: the implications of terms like "LDS Church". In this day and age, it is considered common courtesy to allow people to define their own identity, including what does and does not constitute a slur. This includes racial identity (e.g. "African-American" instead of "Nigger"), national identity (e.g. "Japanese" instead of "Nip"), religious identity (e.g. "Jew" instead of "Yid"), gender identity (e.g. "she" instead of "he"), etc.. The de facto rules of civil discourse require others to use said terminology, and Latter-day Saints should be afforded the same courtesy.

So, what's the problem here? Well, the Book of Mormon teaches that any church that is not called by the Savior's name is not His (3 Nephi 27:8); and that "there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil" (1 Nephi 14:10). So, when we call the Church of Jesus Christ "the LDS Church", "the Mormon Church", or any other name that doesn't include the name of the Savior, we are effectively calling it "the Church of Satan". The Church and its members don't "now" object to terms like that; we always have, despite the tendency of even some Church members to use said terms (much like some African-Americans use the term "Nigger").

As others have said, I'm not completely sure what the best solution would be; ideally, we would follow the Church's own Style Guide, but I recognize that others might object to certain terms therein (e.g. "the restored Church of Jesus Christ") as strenuously as Latter-day Saints object to the religious slurs that Misplaced Pages's style guide presently encourages. But at the same time, if the official name of the Church were "The Restored Church of Jesus Christ", would use of that term not be required, despite others' objections to the claim? I say we work together to come up with a mutually acceptable solution. TheOtter (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Project-Class Latter Day Saint movement pages
• NA-importance Latter Day Saint movement pages
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles