Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Infobox classification

I reverted a recent change that switched the classification from "Restorationist" to "New Religious Movement". The argument was made that "Restorationist" isn't a classification. However, at Christian denomination#Major branches, Restorationism was listed as one of the six main groups into which Christianity can be divided. While NRM and Restorationist are not mutually exclusive (there are overlaps), the classification "Restorationist" is more informative and more inline with how the classification parameter is used on other Christian church pages. I also did a scan of Christian churches/groups in List of new religious movements that use this infobox, and the majority founded after 1830 do not list NRM as its classification (I think I found only one or two that listed NRM). - FyzixFighter (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back and FyzixFighter: I just now saw this discussion a short while after having removed the classification. I don't really care or have an opinion either way. But by this point, it's clear that any classification must include a citation to a supporting reliable source per WP:BURDEN, since we have two unsourced claims being challenged both ways. Left guide (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The current article doesn't actually seem to mention NRM at all which is bizarre, perhaps it was scrubbed by religious extremists at some point? Our page on New Religious Movements spends a lot of time on the LDS, but that isn't reflected in any of the LDS pages I can see. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that they aren't mutually exclusive, the LDS Church is both Restorationist and a New Religious Movement. I'm happy with either or both, but I tend to see using Restorationist and not NRM as averring from NPOV and calling these groups not what is most relevant but what they want to be called... None self identify as a NRM as far as I am aware. The LDS Church is more like the Unification Church than most other Restorationist movements in that they have additional fundamental beliefs things which are not found within Christianity. If we're making a scale of "most Christian to least Christian" LDS and Unification are about as Christian as Christians are Jews. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Are you able to identify any sources that specifically refer to the LDS Church as a new religious movement? I see a lot of what appears to be personal analysis of religion, but it ultimately comes down to what the sources say. In addition to the New religious movement article, there's also New religious movements in the United States which may be another useful starting point in researching for sources. Left guide (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Both of those pages contain such sources. I am unaware of any full length publication on new religious movements which does not, they almost all start with the LDS. They aren't just a NRM, they are the archetypical NRM. Its also used within Mormon studies itself extensively, the theme of Claremont's mormon studies conference (the largest not organized by BYU) in 2021 was "‘Mormon’: The Politics of Naming New Religious Movements" for an example from within BYU see [1]. Its not really a contest, both can be sourced... One (NRM) admittedly more extensively than the other, but both could be the way to go. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's not a contest, and that both can be included (if reliably-sourced of course). I should have been more clear about that at the outset. Left guide (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This Restorationist church has its origins in nineteenth-century America, and this identity persists is a straightforward identification of the denomination as "restorationist" in a comfortably non-religious academic context. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

"the LDS Church is both Restorationist and a New Religious Movement." True, though this "new" movement has nearly 200 years of history and surprising staying power. In any case, Restorationism covers Christian new religious movements that arose in the 19th century, as one of the main effects of that new "religious fervor" in the Second Great Awakening. Remarkably different that previous versions of Christianity. Dimadick (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

"Restorationist" is better than NRM in the infobox because it is far more descriptive in concisely locating the church in the overall hierarchy of religion. (Religion > Christianity > Christian primitivist/restorationist > Mormonism, instead of Religion > New Religious Movments > Mormonism.) That helps clarify its relationship to other early-American NRMS like Pentacostalism (Christian, but not primitivist), Jehovah's Witnesses (Christian and primitivist), and Scientology (not Christian). ~Awilley (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen Pentacostalism referred to as an NRM and google isn't turning up anything, source? I will also point out that it doesn't have to be an either or situation, we can have two (some infoboxes have up to a half dozen). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen Pentacostalism referred to as an NRM—From the first page of Google results for "Pentecostalism AND New Religious Movement": Pentcostalism is a relatively new religious movement, having its beginnings, most authorities say, in 1901 (The West Virginia Encyclopedia, West Virginia Humanities Council, last revised August 8, 2023). From a GoogleScholar search: New members of three NRMs in Germany (a Pentecostal parish, the New Apostolic Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses; (Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, February 2008).

some infoboxes have up to a half dozen—While other articles might list half a dozen categories, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE reminds us to keep infoboxes brief where possible. Listing in the infobox the most precise and relevant category—"Christian restorationist" (placing the denomination in context with other restorationist denominations, like the Disciples of Christ and Jehovah's Witnesses) is more informative than "NRM". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

"relatively new religious movement" =/= new religious movement... That Nova Religio articles does use it though, that surprises me. I don't see how excluding NRM is informative, don't you want them to know that the LDS Church is a NRM? Or do you disagree with the characterization of the LDS Church as a NRM? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with overstuffing sidebars with every possible description and favor terms that are more precise over terms that are less precise, and the Manual of Style favors briefer infoboxes where possible. Awilley has thoroughly explained how "restorationist" more precisely identifies the church within the religious landscape and is therefore suitable for the infobox. There is a whole body text in which to convey information, beyond the infobox which for space considerations is only a partial summary of key points of information—like so. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Shortening wikilinks for readability and less visual clutter

I would like to seek WP:CONSENSUS on some good faith edits that were made by mikeblas recently before I try to undo them. This page says "Do not attempt to remove the words "Mormon" or "LDS" from the page" yet "Main article" and "See also" wikilinks were changed from saying LDS Church to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, changes which I believe are in violation of that policy.

For example, the "Demographics" subsection wikilinks now say:

"Main articles: Demographics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Membership statistics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Membership history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

Previously it stated (and I propose it should be returned to say something like):

"Main articles: Demographics of the LDS Church, Membership statistics of the LDS Church, and Membership history of the LDS Church"

As can be seen here, it's much more concise while still being clear when it just says "LDS Church" in the multiple wikilinks. By restating a lengthy title that has an already defined LDS initialism the article is being unnecessarily redundant (and the article itself is arguably already wordy). I believe it would lead to less visual clutter to shorten all the wikilinks on this page following when "LDS Church" is defined, and to restore the wikilinks to how they were before the initialism LDS was removed. I understand wanting to list the full article titles, but in this case it gets cumbersome and unnecessary when it's done over 30 times in the article's wikilinks. Thoughts anyone? Pastelitodepapa (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I changed these links because they're used for navigation. If a reader sees a navigation link that says "X" and they click on it and end up redirected to "Y", it's a jarring and a bit confusing experience. As far as I can tell, the target articles here have always been named with "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and not "LDS Church". I assumed the hat note you referenced applied to prose and not directly linking articles. And the WP:LDSMOS policy it references doesn't mention navigation links or article titles at all ... but it does refer to MOS:1STOCC.

Presumably, the articles were named with the same project policies in mind. Maybe the article names should be changed if they're not compatible. MOS:ACROTITLE seems to support this, as it says Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Responding to the "jarring and a bit confusing experience" bit. I would argue that someone at the bottom of this article clicking on a link to "Membership history of the LDS Church" should not be at all confused when they end up at "Membership history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". I don't think it's WP:EGG-y in this context if we don't redundantly refer to the title of the article. ~Awilley (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That might be because you're already familiar with the material. For me (and I expect most people), "LDS Church" doesn't seem at all the same as "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

I also note there are a few links in this article that use the longer name because redirects don't exist. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Theological criticism

Hi, I recently approved [2] this pending change by an IP, because it was a change made in good faith and seemed reasonable enough to me (although I made some slight changes here). These changes were undone entirely by FyzixFighter. While I agree that there should be stronger sourcing, I don't think this necessarily warrants wholesale removal of content. This theological stance is well known. Jehovah's Witnesses run into similar issues – scholars generally consider them to be a Christian denomination, while a substantial amount of other Christian denominations object to this classification. So it seems reasonable enough to me that this would be included in a criticism section. Maybe the phrasing "most Christians" in particular should be removed, as that really is a sweeping statement, but I genuinely think there could be something here about this. Thoughts? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Some examples of what I mean: [3] by the Christian Century, this short explanation by BBC Religions [4], or what Pew Research Centre says here. Unfortunately I don't have an extensive book collection like I do for the JWs but I think this is enough to show that it's not just a university magazine that says this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This raises an interesting matter, and I think the Christian perception of Latter-day Saints as non-Christian/un-Christian is an encyclopedic topic—of course, best presented by citing sources that analyze the perception, rather than by citing sources that aver that perception themselves. As I'm persuaded by WP:CRITICISM that 'criticism'/'controversy' sections are better off avoided, with such content instead woven throughout (e. g. historical plural marriage and queer exclusion as part of teachings about family and sexuality; investments as part of financial practices, etc.), so too I think it'd be better to incorporate such content in the main body of the article. Maybe as part of the "history" section, noting various points in history when the charge of 'un-Christianness' was levied (with it taking on different valences in the 19th and 20th centuries)?

As far as sources about this go, here is a smattering that I'm familiar with:

• Jan Shipps, "Is Mormonism Christian? Reflections on a Complicated Question", chapter in her Sojourner in the Promised Land: Forty Years Among the Mormons (University of Illinois Press, 2000), 335–357: Shipps narrates some of the history of the "Mormons aren't Christian" charge in the later 20th century by contextualizing it with conservative Evangelicals similarly charging liberal Protestantism with being 'un-Christian'.
• Stephen Webb, Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn From the Latter-day Saints (Oxford University Press, 2013): in chapter 4, "Branches on the Family Tree", Webb reports that Many Christians treat Mormons as members of an exotic religious species that has nothing in common with the Christian genome (113) (As the title of the book suggests, the formal finding of Webb's study is to consider Mormons Christians, contrary to the perception that he describes)
• David T. Smith, "Predicting Acceptance of Mormons as Christians by Religion and Party Identity", Public Opinion Quarterly 80, no. 3 (Fall 2016): 783–795, https://doi.org10.1093/poq/nfw022: This is an interesting source about demographic predictors in the United States for whether a person considers Latter-day Saints "Christian" or "not Christian".
• Matthew Bowman, "Mormonism", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History (accessible via Wikipedia Library), March 3, 2016: this encyclopedia entry reports that during the latter twentieth century, the evangelical countercult movement [...] assailed Mormonism (and other faiths, like Christian Science and the Jehovah’s Witnesses) as un-Christian cults.

For clarity since this sometimes gets vexed in this article: the thesis of these sources isn't 'Mormons are not Christians' but 'certain Christians in certain historical contexts have regarded Mormons as not being Christians'. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I should have also pointed out in the edit summary that the points made in that edit already do exist in the article, particularly in this section. The inclusion there seems more natural than where the IP had put it and is more consistent with WP:CRITICISM. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. I didn't realize this was already covered in that section. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Modern Practice of Polygamy through Sealing

I have a question for someone who understands this topic. My understanding is that a man can be sealed to more than one woman at a time. For example, a man might divorce a wife then marry another one and be sealed to both women in the temple. How is this not practicing polygamy? I understand that the church only allows one man married to one woman at a time, but they can be sealed to previous spouses if the parties agree to that. This would mean that in the celestial kingdom, a man would have two wives (or more than two). So explain to me how this is not practicing a form of spiritual polygamy? 24.21.161.89 (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I am going to add a section about the practice of polygamous sealings to the main article in few days or so if I don't hear back from editors on this topic. There are voluminous secondary sources which discuss the LDS church still practicing polygamy in the afterlife by sealing multiple women to a single man.24.21.161.89 (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there might be an issue with WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH, depending on the sources. Such text may be more appropriate at Sealing (Mormonism). A similar issue came up over at Second Manifesto#Church's "public" attitude, where the disputed text extrapolated from sources describing the policy to imply the Church had distinct public and non-public teachings regarding polygamy. So again, depends on the sources.

Personally, I think the issue is a lot more complex. For example, a deceased woman may be sealed to all deceased men (and living men depending on the situation) to whom she was married in life. In the situation you mentioned above, the man would need approval from the First Presidency even if the first sealing was cancelled to be sealed again. Also, in that situation if the first sealing were not cancelled, the first wife would not be required to be married to the husband in the celestial kingdom if she didn't want to be. The sealing cannot override agency in LDS theology. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds complex and requires church approval. However, what you describe is still a form of polygamy, but not certain the term "polygamy" applies here as it is understood to be one man and multiple women. Sounds like both polygamy and polyandry are associated with this practice. I will go and research these sources and thanks for adding some insight into the matter. I will propose edits here for discussion before placing them into the proper article. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I found this source in your previous discussionthis SLTrib article. It seems relevant to our discussion, and does tend to suggest that multiple sealings of wives to one man is fairly common practice, since both Russell Nelson and Dallin Oaks are both sealed to multiple women. The Source also plainly calls this sealing practice "polygamy". But I still struggle with using that term because the church plainly states it does not allow polygamous marriages. So I guess the catch here to avoid the pitfall of original research to claim this practice is "spiritual polygamy" when in fact it's a multiple sealing of sorts. So I agree with you that WP:SYNTH is a problem here, even though the source claims this is a form of polygamy. The term "multiple sealings" is more accurate but unfortunately the sources don't back that up or use that term. I will look into other multiple sealing sources, then propose something along those lines in terms of content. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I've moved the material down to the criticism/controversy subsection about polygamy as the lede should summarize the high level points of the body and not include material not found in the body. I've also trimmed information that was not found in the cited article - such as information about agency and afterlife. Also, the statement about Oaks and Nelson seems superfluous and unnecessary and the newspaper article says they were married but doesn't indicate if they were sealed (prior to 2021, it was possible to married in the temple for time only, ie not sealed). I do believe Nelson and Watson were sealed when they married, but again I don't think it is germane to the point. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you go back to the article and accept my last edit. You had two ref tags back to back and it generated an error so I fixed it. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, whether Nelson and Oaks are sealed to multiple women would seem germane since they are high ranking church leaders who are expected to set an example for other church members. I agree with everything you did except that part of the edit. They lead by example, and the source clearly states they are sealed to multiple women. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The name of the Church

"The church's official name refers to Jesus Christ as its leader and founder of the Church, to the conversion of the faithful, or saints, to the church in the last dispensation — hence the reference to the "latter-day." The term "saints" is the same denomination used at the time of Jesus Christ in the New Testament." Someone is keeping deleting this phrase in the article. Lennyonwiki (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe the section on "Name and other entities" explains the name pretty well, but you can look at that section to see if it needs further clarification from your edit. I would, however, recommend reading MOS:LDS and past discussions on this talk page as it has come up frequently. I don't see you adding anything that hasn't already been discussed, but it is worth reviewing. Is the "Mormon Church" or "LDS Church" wrong? Well, it is not the full correct name, but it is often used and the consensus on Wikipedia is to use the term LDS Church in articles about the Church. Bahooka (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's not "wrong" and that's okay, but that section about the name of the Church might be acceptable in the first paragraph. It is just a brief explanation about the name of the Church. Because it makes it easier for the reader to understand before delving into the full article. I ask you to consider this small change :) Lennyonwiki (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Assuming you're talking about this edit. Well, it has a lot of problems, but a big one is that it's just not appropriate for the second sentence of an encyclopedia article.

The church's official name refers to Jesus Christ...

That goes without saying.

...as its leader and founder of the Church

There are WP:NPOV problems with calling Jesus the "founder" of a church that was formed 1800 years after his death.

And from there it quickly goes too far into the weeds for the second sentence of an encyclopedia article. ~Awilley (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

No, not this edit. This one is wrong. Maybe I can change the phrase to "According to the Church doctrine, the church's official name refers to Jesus Christ as its leader and founder of the Church, to the conversion of the faithful, or "saints", to the church in the last dispensation — hence the reference to the "latter-day." The term "saints" is the same denomination used at the time of Jesus Christ in the New Testament."

So the first paragraph would like this: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is a restorationist, nontrinitarian Christian denomination. According to Church doctrine, the church's official name refers to Jesus Christ as its leader and founder of the Church, to the conversion of the faithful, or "saints", to the church in the last dispensation – hence the reference to the "latter-days." The term “saints” is the same denomination used at the time of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. The church is headquartered in the United States in Salt Lake City, Utah and (...)" Lennyonwiki (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That helps with the WP:NPOV problem, but it's still not relevant enough to this article to have that kind of detail in the 2nd sentence. This article a high level article about the organization, not a detailed article about the name of the organization. Trying to define what "saint" means is not a good use of space in the Lead section. ~Awilley (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if you say so. But my suggestion is still open for other editors to consider. We could reach a consensus. Lennyonwiki (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

We had to enroll local christ church.****

Distinguishing characteristic of this church

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is a restorationist, nontrinitarian Christian denomination."

That's all fine, but the fact that it is in the Latter Day Saint movement seems to be a more defining characteristic. Can we move that last sentence of the paragraph up?

jps (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [...] is the largest denomination in the Latter Day Saint movement.: As a first sentence, this isn't a very helpful high-level description for readers who may be unfamiliar with the multidenominational history of Mormonism, coming across to the unfamiliar as it does as the tautological "Latter-day Saints are Latter Day Saints". Locating the denomination within Christianity (which a reader is more likely to be familiar with) as well as within the Latter Day Saint movement is more helpful for the first sentence. I compare this to Presbyterian Church (USA) (permanent link), which doesn't open "The Presbyterian Church (USA), abbreviated PCUSA, is the largest Presbyterian denomination in the United States" ('Presbyterians are Presbyterians') but instead locates it in a wider stream: The Presbyterian Church (USA), abbreviated PCUSA, is a mainline Protestant denomination in the United States.; the second sentence then narrows in: It is the largest Presbyterian denomination in the country. I agree with User:FyzixFighter ([5]) and User:Jgstokes ([6]) about retaining the big-picture description in the first sentence and have made that revision. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The larger stream is the LDS movement. It is not "Christianity" writ large. The reader is not helped by an obfuscation of the cult (in the Weberian sense) of which LDS is a part. jps (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, I don't see this as an either/or binary decision. While I agree being the largest denomination in the LDS movement is a principal distinguishing feature, I would argue that where the church sits within the larger body of Christianity is equally distinguishing, especially given the church's heterodox theology, is an equally distinguishing characteristic. This is also not unprecedented lede structure in looking at other Christian denominations, such as Jehovah's Witnesses which is another heterodox Christian church. There is no and hasn't been any obfuscation. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not really that distinguishing. Basically many of the other churches founded in America in the nineteenth century was non-trinitarian and restorationist in some fashion or another. It does not help the reader to identify it as such.

But your comment points out a possible compromise. Heterodox Christianity is a redlink. However, I see some sources which do comment upon in that kind of grouping. This is a far more descriptive category than restorationist or nontrinitarian. jps (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with FyzixFighter. First, the sentence that JPS calld obfuscatory was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is a restorationist, nontrinitarian Christian denomination and the largest denomination in the Latter Day Saint movement., and it hardly seems to occlude the denomination's affiliation with the Latter Day Saint movement insofar as that is brought up in literally the very next part of the sentence.

Second, other churches founded in that time and place being non-trinitarian and restorationist is, if anything, useful: it makes it possible for a reader to begin to place the article's topic within the religious landscape, more helpfully than the more niche neologism "Latter Day Saint movement".

As for heterodox Christianity, if you find it a personally edifying hermeneutic, that's great for yourself. I'll note that it seems to not be a particularly academic way to describe this article's topic. (At the time of writing, a GoogleScholar search yields only 7 hits for "heterodox christianity" and "Mormonism" searched together.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Definitions need to be distinguishing from other similar things. If the definition does not uniquely identify the thing being defined, it is not a definition. Also, using the same word twice ("denomination") in the same sentence is not great. If you use Google Scholar to try to decide what is an "academic way" to do things with quotes, you'll find that Wikipedia's definition gets zero hits. jps (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

"Heterodox" is a neutral way that I've seen others use to refer to non-mainstream denominations in discussions. I didn't mean to imply it was a common term from RS's. I think most editors would say a non-trinitarian Christian theology is automatically not orthodox.

I haven't seen anything in the guidance or MOS for the lede that says that the first sentence must uniquely identify the subject. In fact, this is not true for several articles based on a cursory sampling. Imo, saying "restorationist, non-trinitarian Christian denomination" tells the reader a lot more information and context about the subject, and therefore better serves the purpose of the lede, than "largest denomination in LDS movement". --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

+1. I'd add that 'restorationist, non-trinitarian Christian denomination' also tells the reader a lot more information and context, and better serves the purpose of the lead, than 'the Mormon Church spreads Mormonism', which comes across as tautological. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Why not "non-unitarian"? jps (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you actively suggesting we work this into the lede, or asking rhetorically? I'm open to working it into the lede if we can do so in a way that's not confusing and clarifies this middle ground (e.g. "...rejects both trinitarianism and unitarianism")

If you're asking rhetorically, the difference in my mind is that the vast majority of Christians are trinitarian, so rejecting trinitarianism is noteworthy, while rejecting unitarianism is "expected". For example, worshipping on Saturday and advocating vegetarianism are notable tenets of Seventh-Day Adventists, but worshipping on Sunday and eating meat are not notable tenets of, say, Lutherans. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The assumption is often that when a church is non-trinitarian it is unitarian. LDS Mormons seem to be fairly uniquely neither. jps (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The Later Day Saint movement is kind of an obscure academic category that gets way more weight in Wikipedia than it does in sources. Saying the LDS Church is the largest church in the LDS movement is like saying the Catholic Church is the largest church in the Christian movement. If you want something that is more accessible to the average reader, just call it the largest church in Mormonism.

What makes the church unique? I'd put restorationism or "Christian primitivism" at or near the top of the list. I can't think of any other comparatively sized Christian religion that has taken it to such an extreme. 12 apostles. New books of scripture. Proselytizing missionaries going out two by two. That's all part of it. And they pull stuff from the Old Testament too...prophets, temples, rituals... ~Awilley (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I would much prefer "the largest church in Mormonism", but the argument above is that this is circular. I don't think it is, but if this is the direction we could go in for the lede sentence, I would be thrilled. Why can't we leave the theological stuff below?

The problem, of course, with arguing about whether it is "primitivist" or not is you have to contend with the apostolic churches who claim the mantle (whether deservedly or not). Restorationist, at least, follows the Protestant trend of impugning devilish motivations on the churches that claim direct lineage to Early Christianity through bishops. There are other "primitivist" churches out there that follow a kind of similar flavor without new scripture (e.g. Two by Twos). jps (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree "restorastionist" is better than "primitivist". ~Awilley (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the problem as I see it is that the "restorationist" tent is too big to provide a clear picture for the reader if it features prominently the first sentence. The first thing that someone who is considering the LDS Church is not generally, "oh, you mean that restorationist outfit down the street!" jps (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Putting aside the other Mormon denominations, I think a confused reader is better served by an explanation indicates the precise flavor of non-trinitarian, restorationist Christianity that this church is in particular. What makes it unique is not its non-trinitarian, restorationist dogma. What makes it unique is its historical connection to the main lineage of the LDS movement. Inasmuch as we can describe what that particular approach is, we do a far better job explaining this group to the reader than simply offering a definition that equally applies to dozens of other churches and sects. jps (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, for example, why non-trinitarian? Why not also point out that it is also non-unitarian? jps (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree the first sentence doesn't uniquely characterize the church, but I don't see the concern. The first sentence of today's featured article blurb is "Well he would, wouldn't he?" is an aphorism that is commonly used as a retort to a self-interested denial. This also doesn't uniquely identify the topic — clearly it's not the only such aphorism. It simply situates the reader in the right general area, then the rest of the lede fills in the details. We can do the same here.

I do think "non-trinitarian" is an important characteristic that helps orient readers. While there are a few other non-trinitarian denominations, the overwhelming majority of Christians for 1700 years have been trinitarian. This immediately establishes the LDS church's heterodoxy on a core Christian topic.

I'm less attached to "restorationist", since that feels more like academic jargon. The restorationism article doesn't give a super clear definition ("The terms restorationism, restorationist and restoration are used in several senses within Christianity"), so I don't know how helpful this term is to a lay reader. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

But obviously there is more than just being "nontrinitarian". How would you distinguish them from Jehovah's Witnesses who are also nontrinitarian? jps (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

A reader can distinguish the denominations by continuing to read the rest of the article, which elaborates (and the rest of the first sentence, for that matter). As Ghosts of Europa—and I, and FyzixFighter—have stated, the first sentence of an article should identify and describe the topic, but that's not necessarily going to mean perfectly and with absolutely no overlap whatsoever distinguishing the topic (since such distinguishing isn't always going to be an informative description, as in the case of first sentences that approach becoming 'Latter-day Saints are Latter Day Saints' and 'Mormons spread Mormonism'). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

What you are not addressing is the rationale for including some descriptors but not others. We ought to do this more than on vibes. What makes the LDS church special? That's what I would like to see put up front. For example, on the Jehovah's Witness page, the millenarianism is in the list which positions the description so that people get the flavor of Christianity. I would like to see that for this church too that goes beyond the LDS propaganda which attempts to downplay the uniqueness of the church on first introduction. LDS Church is different. Our current lede sentence doesn't really give hints of that. jps (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that all the jargon in the lead of the JW article isn't uncontroversial. Multiple people have noted the current lead isn't ideal. I've been thinking about the best way to remedy those concerns and the best alternative I've come up with so far is a "classification" section that hasn't yet been implemented. Anyways, I think it's wise to be cautious that things should be done a certain way just because that's how it's done elsewhere. There's very few active editors in the JW topic area compared to the LDS topic area and I'm not sure everything about those articles should be emulated (there's a known issue of a reliance on primary sources, for example). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. What I worry about here, however, is that we aren't really identifying the kind of church that is this one. All we have is that it is Christian, restorationist, and nontrintarian. But that is not the distinguishing feature. jps (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

the rationale for including some descriptors: I think FyzixFighter, Ghosts of Europa, and I have explained the rationale pretty thoroughly.

but not others: This seems to be describing the situation in reverse. The version of the first sentence FyzixFighter put in the article includes both the description as it was earlier and the reference to being the largest group in the Latter Day Saint movement. Your edits include in the first sentence some descriptors but exclude others (like restorationism and non-trinitarianism).

We ought to do this more than on vibes: We ought to, which is why I cited academic sources and why I, FyzixFighter, and Ghosts of Europa have explained our reasons. Your rationale seems to be—because you're not personally satisfied with the consensus? Your feelings are your own, but at some point repeatedly reiterating more or less the same argument risks becoming circular.

What makes the LDS church special?: As Ghosts of Europa explains, the non-trinitarianism is a big part of that. As I've explained with reference to academic sources, restorationism is too. So also the Latter Day Saint movement connection that you pointed out, and that has been added to the first sentence.

LDS Church is different. Our current lede sentence doesn't really give hints of that: Doesn't it? It's restorationist (most churches aren't), non-trinitarian (most churches aren't), and in the Latter Day Saint movement (most churches aren't). That's pretty distinguishing.

the LDS propaganda: If you think academic publisher Wiley Blackwell and the scholarly periodical Journal of GLBT Family Studies (since renamed LGBTQ+ Family), cited to warrant these characterizations, are organs for "LDS propaganda", I'm not sure how you arrived there. It seems patently not the case. I'm not sure what else can be said. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

You are coming across here as filibustering here in ways that are unhelpful. You seem inveterately incapable of understanding my concerns and instead are repeating points that are irrelevant or tangential. The point I am trying to make is that a lede which identifies this church as restorationist and nontrinitarian is not distinguishing the church clearly and there is a motivated reasoning I am concerned about which is the way the church itself says it wants to be described (eschewing the Mormonism emphasis, for example). jps (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Granting that this is how the church wants to be described, I don't see anything nefarious or problematic about us agreeing. The ACLU would like to be called a human rights organization, and we do call as a human rights organization. The US calls itself a democracy, and we also call it a democracy. There are certainly some who would dispute these descriptions, but as long as they're neutral and well-sourced (e.g. we're not calling North Korea a democracy just because that's what they call themselves, and we're not calling the LDS church the true path of salvation!), I don't see a problem. Attributing any correspondence between our definition and the church's to "motivated reasoning" seems highly uncharitable. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

There isn't anything problematic per se -- excepting that the emphasis is on similarities rather than differences which causes problems for Wikipedia in trying to describe what this particular church is. It seems to me that the focus on restoriationist, nontrinitarian Christianity is emphasizing a feature that is not distinguishing in part because the PR approach of the LDS church has been to emphasize similarities rather than differences. I worry that this approach is underlying some of the editorial reticence seen here in trying to describe the church in the least WP:ASTONISHing fashion. jps (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

While restorationism is an academic term, I think it's relevance to the topic is strong enough to warrant it. Daniel Walker Howe's chapter in the 2015 Oxford Handbook of Mormonism states that Joseph Smith’s revealed religion was avowedly restorationist, for instance, and calling the denomination 'restorationist' appears across scholarly literature (This Restorationist church Sites: A Journal of Social Anthropology and Cultural Studies; As Mormonism has grown, its restorationist impulse has not waned, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion; Restorationist movements like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Nova Religio; Millennial groups spawned by therestoration movements included the [...] the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐day Saints (Mormons), Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Religion and Politics in the U. S.). Even the specific formulation of non-trinitarian Christian restorationism is indicated in scholarship: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a non-trinitarian Christian restorationist church (Journal of GLBT Family Studies, published by Taylor & Francis). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of those are describing the movement not the church, restorationism isn't a reature of the LDS Church specifically its a feature shared by the entire Mormon Movement. That means that if we're saying its a part of the Mormon Movement we don't need to include that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Appropriately distinguishing the LDS Church relative to the "Mormon Movement" or "Latter Day Saint movement" is too narrow for the general readership who has no idea what those things are either. In the first sentence you want to distinguish it relative to something big and relatable that readers will recognize. Here's an example of how not to write a first sentence (a stub article I found using "Random article").

"Milnesium asiaticum is a species of Eutardigrades in the family Milnesiidae."

Okay...? That tells me nothing. Is it an insect? a plant?

So for this article, you need to include the big well-known classifications in addition to the nitty gritty details. Here's a table to further illustrate my point.

Right way to classify	Wrong way to classify
Q: What is LDS? A: It's a church.	Q: What is LDS? A: It's a church.
Q: What kind of church? A: The Christian kind.	Q: What kind of church? A: The biggest one in the Latter Day Saint movement.
Q: Oh, how is it different from other Christian churches I've heard of? A: It's Restorationaist and Nontrinitarian.	Q: Uh, ok, what's that? A: The LDS church is Nontrinitarian.

~Awilley (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Christian is already inherent in "Church" so we're actually looking at something like this...

Right way to classify	Wrong way to classify
Q: What is LDS? A: It's a church.	Q: What is LDS? A: It's a church.
Q: What kind of church? A: The Mormon kind.	Q: What kind of church? A: The biggest one in the Latter Day Saint movement.
Q: Oh, how is it different from other Mormon churches I've heard of? A: It's Nontrinitarian.	Q: Uh, ok, what's that? A: The LDS church is Nontrinitarian.

If we're talking the general public this is how it would go. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, "nontrintiarian" is just a specific stand-in for a whole host of heterodoxies (see my brief discussion with FyzixFighter above). The LDS church is the largest church, but theologically it fits between the RLDS/Communities of Christ reformists on the one hand who are moving closer and closer to Mainline Protestantism and the fundamentalists Mormons on the other who still adhere to practices and dogmas now firmly rejected by the LDS Church. The LDS Church, thus, is kind of a "middle way" Mormon church. That's the true way to distinguish it in plain language, IMHO. jps (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@HEB: "how is it different from other Mormon churches I've heard of?"...said nobody ever. The non-LDS Mormon churches account for some tiny fraction of a percent of Mormons. "Mormon Church" refers unambiguously to the LDS Church, which is why it shows up so early in the 1st sentence. And the other "Mormon churches" are also nontrinitarian, so your A to Q3 is incorrect. The correct answer to Q3 is that this Mormon church doesn't allow polygamy. ~Awilley (talk)

You would appear to be expressing faith based bigotry towards the minor Mormon denominations, are you a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

A recognition that most people who either aren't in the Latter Day Saint movement devotionally or in Mormon studies professionally (or are editing such articles on Wikipedia avocationally) don't know about the existence of Mormon denominations other than the Mormon Church isn't an example of bigotry so much as an acknowledgment of the awareness of a typical reader. [M]ost Americans may think that the terms Latter-day Saint and Mormon are synonymous, and I don't see strog reason to think things are much different in most parts of the world.

As for your question about an editor's personal religious affiliation, I'd remind you of an Arbitration Committee principle stating that Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors and {{tq|it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what they said... Let them answer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hydrangeans is correct. ~Awilley (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

So you do not consider calling all Mormom groups who are not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints polygamous to be a bigoted statement? And you do not consider denying the Mormonness of the trinitarian mormon groups to be bigoted? Because from an outsider perspective those seem to reflect the prejudices of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not facts or academic consenus. I will also ask you to clarify your COI, if you are a member of this faith you do need to disclose that when particpating on this talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This approach seems unnecessarily confrontational. We can discuss what to emphasize and elide in a summary sentence without accusing each other of bigotry.

I don't think it's reasonable to call church membership a COI. That would mean a billion people, about 1/8th of the world population, would need to declare a COI if they ever edit the page Catholic Church. While I doubt this applies to Awilley specifically, there are countless circumstances where publicly disclosing one's religious beliefs could have severe social consequences or outright put someone in danger. If you do think this should be a general principle, I think this deserves a discussion in a larger venue such as COIN. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not its a COI isn't in dispute, the only thing that could be disputed is whether or not its a signficant COI... Given that the opinions they are expressing seem to be based more on the Church's view of its competitors than a rational or academic take its not innaproriate to question whether the COI is extensive enough to impact their ability to edit impartially. If we were discussing how to characterize the Catholic Church I would expect any members to disclose their COI, its not like its only tangentially related or is a minor facet of the religion (the same would go for someone who has a COI by belonging to a competitor, if they're on the talk page saying that a distinguising feature of Catholiscism is that its led by the anticrist thats a COI issue). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Who is excluded by the phrase "belonging to a competitor"? If I'm editing the Catholic Church page, do I need to declare a COI if I'm a Unitarian Universalist? A Buddhist? A Secular Humanist?

If someone calls the Pope the antichrist, I would object to that on Neutrality grounds regardless of the editor's religious beliefs. COI does not strike me as the correct angle there. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

If it impacts your ability to edit impartially you need to declare, the most common impact is on the ability to perceive neutrality. I'm sure that Awilley thinks that the contention that these groups are either not real Mormons or are polygamous is neutral and not a specific POV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess there is a subtle concern here which is that the LDS Church has official positions on the precise subject of how they want to be described to the outside world (e.g. [7], [8]). In that, they are somewhat, though not entirely, unique when compared to other religions/churches. This church actively discourages certain kinds of descriptions while encouraging others, and to the extent that I see this kind of argument being leveraged here, I personally worry that it might be something influenced by the Church's approach rather than an approach taken by an idealized disinterested observer. jps (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Bushman p.14 says that the RLDS / Community of Christ also rejects polygamy. Since that's the second largest subset of Mormonism, this doesn't seem like a useful distinguishing factor for the LDS church.

(Apologies if I'm replying to the wrong message; the reply buttons are messed up in this thread) Ghosts of Europa (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The thing I am coming back to is the defining features of the church. Rejection of polygamy is important as it became a foundational feature of the main group who were practicing Mormons even as that causes the fundamentalists to reject the main group. Meanwhile the RLDS/CoC group reject the term "Mormon" in part due to its association with the practice. Like it or lump it, the polygamous past of the LDS church continues to loom large in the way it is seen by the outsiders even as it tries to move on. Bushman complains about this by explaining the exasperation LDS members have with this ongoing fascination/confusions of the outsiders as they view the LDS church. I think it's fine to point out this, but this can't be the main motivation for avoiding mention of or downplaying the LDS church's polygamous past and its eventual rejection of polygamy in our lede, for example. jps (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

What about "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church is the largest denomination of the Latter Day Saint movement" or "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church is the largest denomination of the Latter Day Saint movement a restorationist, nontrinitarian Movement within Christianity." ? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I largely agree, however, I believe the second biggest denomination in Mormonism is trinitarian. jps (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you are right and I am mistaken, noting seperatly that it is nontrinitarian is probably the way to go then. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The Community of Christ is definitely part of the LDS Movement, but whether it's part of Mormonism is debatable. ~Awilley (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am interested in that distinction and which sources are making it. Can you point to references to that debate? It may help clarify matters if Mormonism only includes LDS and FLDS. jps (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If you want a good source that gives a good overview of the subject in not too many pages, I would recommend Mormonism: a very short introduction by Richard Bushman. I think a cover-to-cover reading of an academic source like that would be helpful, because right now it feels like your knowledge of the subject comes mostly from stereotypical media portrayals of Mormonism (I'm thinking stuff like Godmakers or Under the Banner of Heaven) supplemented by quick Google searches to support specific changes you'd like to make. ~Awilley (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to where in the book Bushman identifies the debate? I did a skim and could not find it. jps (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, the book is not very good. I would not call it "academic". It's pretty pedestrian and contains a lot of asides and commentary unbefitting of serious scholarship. jps (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It's meant to be a broad introduction to a reader unfamiliar with the topic, and Bushman is one of the most respected scholars in the field. I don't have the book on me at the moment, I loaned my copy to someone a while back and they never returned it, so I can't give you specific page numbers. ~Awilley (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I need something different than this. Reading through the first dozen pages I didn't find anything particularly new or compelling and a lot that was facilely arguable. jps (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you clarify something... In this book does Bushman address the topic of whether or not the RLDS count as Mormons? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

On page 14 Bushman identifies it as a "branch of Mormonism", so I would say he does not accept the claim that they aren't Mormon. He, along with everyone else it seems, acknowledges that they have moved steadily towards the mainstream Protestant understanding of a lot of topics even as the LDS church more-or-less voted with their feet in the nineteenth century to maintain a more fundamentalist approach. But I was unable to find discussion of any internal debate over proper categorization.... but I grant that I did not read the book "cover to cover" as was recommended by Awilley after getting a bit fed up with the rhetorical approach that borders close on apologia. jps (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Is restorationist/nontrinitarian the main distinguishing feature?

I don't think so. I think the main distinguishing feature of the church is the devotion to the peculiar teachings of Joseph Smith and his successors that ended up in Utah while also having modernized in very particular ways (relating mostly to plural marriage but also to racial theories and... to a lesser degree... United Order, blood atonement, Adam-God doctrine, etc.) This is a better way of identifying the LDS church.

jps (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Restorationism is probably one of the biggest distinguishing features, as I said above. Even polygamy, another big distinguishing feature until about 100 years ago, arguably fell under "restorationism". (Doctrinally it is presented as a restoration of Old Testament polygamy...what Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were practicing.) United Order, blood atonement, Adam-God...I'm not sure where you're getting those. Those are largely fringe ideas that some leader or another taught for a short time but that never went mainstream. Racial theories are hardly unique to Mormonism. The most unique thing about the LDS Church on that front is that they held onto their racist theories a couple of decades longer than other churches and that they had a formal policy for excluding black priesthood. (Black men were excluded from the priesthood of other white Christian churches because the theological seminaries were acting like gate keepers by not being admitting black students, much as law and medicine schools were doing at the time.) ~Awilley (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"Never went mainstream" means that they aren't adopted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. FLDS churches do adopt them. To distinguish between this church and the more fundamentalist ones, we identify the ideas which are different. The racist ideas of Mormonism are pretty unique to the LDS Church given their doctrinal adherence to them to a much later date than others. Their peculiar beliefs in the Book of Mormon (and later) scriptures is also distinguishing. jps (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

the main distinguishing feature of the church is the devotion to the peculiar teachings of Joseph Smith and his successor: Those teachings principally including—the belief that the denomination is a restoration of a primitive Christian church. I've yet to see a persuasive reason for disregarding the way academic reliable sources describe the topic as restorationist.

As Awilley says, I'm not sure where you're getting some of the elements you seem to consider distinctive. For instance, the United Order experiments in economic communitarianism are of historical interest, but to consider it a main feature of a denomination that for the past century has planted its institutional flag in market capitalism seems pretty unintuitive. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a distinguishing feature. Fundamentalist churches adopt it, LDS moved away from it, but it was a part of the church at one time. jps (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"part of the church at one time" is a pretty squishy criteria for including something in the first sentence. ~Awilley (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Like it or not, these kinds of heterodox ideas form a basis for the way a lot of people are introduced to the LDS Church from all directions. Pointing out that the LDS church no longer believes such things even as other ostensibly "Mormon" groups do believe such things is as much a distinguishing feature of the church as is, say, the way it runs its missions or its attachment to the gaudy aesthetic when it comes to its religious buildings. What I don't think is particularly distinguishing are the precise theological flavorings which are arguably shared by other North American-based Christian groups. jps (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that these differences from Fundamentalist Mormon and other small groups are important and should be mentioned somewhere in the article. But certainly not the first sentence of the Lead. That's the last place where you want to jump into the weeds. The first sentence only gets the biggest most general details. It's a church, its theology is christian/restorationalist/not trinitarian. It was started by Joseph Smith in the 1800s in the United States. After those big details are out of the way you talk about the smaller details, the history with polygamy, the move to Utah, the missionaries, other branches in the LDS movement, etc. ~Awilley (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

But the claim that its more vanilla theology is important while the quirkier dogma (both abandoned and still believed) is in "the weeds" seems to belie the way the church is actually viewed and discussed out of the gate. Its founding by Joseph Smith seems much more important than the precise theology. Its attachment to the Book of Mormon and its elevation of that scripture over the Bible is also more important. Etc. jps (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

So, continuing your metaphor, you're arguing that we should serve the sprinkles before the vanilla, because the sprinkles are more interesting? ~Awilley (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

If only one sundae comes with sprinkles you don't define the sundae to be "vanilla" without mentioning the sprinkles. That's what our first sentence is setting us up to do if we don't offer some distinguishing feature of this church. jps (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• No LDS denomination should be referred to as Christian in wikivoice. Mormonism is theologically distinct from Christianity. While Mormons may believe that they are the true church because Christianity went astray 1700 odd years ago, this is not a mainstream view of the broader Christian tradition. Therefore referring to any LDS denomination as Christian in wikivoice is WP:UNDUE. TarnishedPath^talk 03:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  See Christian denomination which seems to argue that in spite of the demarcations made by certain exclusionary Christians, there is a pretty strong claim to identify Mormons as a denomination of Christianity just by virtue of its history. jps (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  And this is where it all gets fuzzy... By virtue of its history Christianity is a denomination of Judaism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sure. Excepting that there are far more examples of rhetorical agreement evident from Christians and Jews about the distinction being meaningful--Messianic Judaism notwithstanding. Islam could serve as another example of your point. But taking a step back, this is all a bit like asking when a dialect graduates to becoming a new language. jps (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Theres also a eighteen hundred years more of seperation and divergence, as I said earlier if the year was 200 and we were making wikipedia we would almost certainly be calling the various Christian groups Jewish denominations so I'm not sure I see a problem with calling the Mormons Christian in a historical sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The Church was not founded in Fayette, New York

It was Palmyra, New York (unless I was told wrong) BabcocksRhodeIsland1700s (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you're thinking of some other events in church history? Sources and the church agree on the Fayette location, eg [9] and [10]. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

That is possible, I won’t touch it. BabcocksRhodeIsland1700s (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Simplifying the first sentence

There are three Featured Articles about religions. Their opening sentences are:

• Heathenry, also termed Heathenism, contemporary Germanic Paganism, or Germanic Neopaganism, is a modern Pagan religion.
• Rastafari, sometimes called Rastafarianism, is an Abrahamic religion that developed in Jamaica during the 1930s.
• Santería, also known as Regla de Ocha, Regla Lucumí, or Lucumí, is an Afro-Caribbean religion that developed in Cuba during the late 19th century.

None of these front-load their most distinctive elements, and they all avoid academic jargon. They simply say that they are religions, mention alternate names, and briefly say when and where they were developed. If we mimic these, we get something like:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is a Christian denomination founded in the United States during the Second Great Awakening.

I think this would be a better first sentence. It's completely neutral and highly accessible to a lay reader. The rest of the lede can still discuss Joseph Smith, plural marriage, nontrinitarianism, restorationism, the distinction between the LDS church and the LDS movement, etc. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The articles you are listing are the wrong comparison as they are talking about broader religious movements. This isn't the article on the Latter Day Saint movement or Mormonism. This is the article on the LDS Church which is the largest and most prominent communion under the Mormon umbrella, but is not the only one. The article is better compared to Presbyterian Church (USA) or Southern Baptist Convention. In short, I think we need to say something more along the lines of:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is the largest Mormon denomination, tracing its roots to its founding by its first prophet Joseph Smith during the Second Great Awakening.

jps (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should call Smith a prophet in Wikivoice. We can certainly say the church considers him a prophet and that he claimed to be one, but I don't think it's a neutral term. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is the largest Mormon denomination, tracing its roots to its founding by Joseph Smith during the Second Great Awakening. is a significant improvement over the current lead sentence. Levivich (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I agree that this is substantially better. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ghosts of Europa, thank you for doing that research. I think you've convinced me that restorationaism and nontrinitarianism should be dropped from the Lead sentence. If you wanted to simplify further by eliminating potentially unfamiliar terms, I would suggest replacing "during the Second Great Awakening" with "in the 1800s."

@Others, I'd note that we need to be a bit careful with wording when talking about Joseph Smith as "founder". Because technically he founded a church that was later renamed to something else and then split apart after his death and the largest fragment became the LDS Church. So while the LDS Church claims Smith as founder, so do a lot of other churches. ~Awilley (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

While it is undeniable that there is internal debate and controversy over which of the fragmented churches of Mormonism are the true successors of the church founded by Joseph Smith, nevertheless the claim to Joseph Smith as the originator remains the cleanest demarcation of LDS Church's precise doctrines and community. To the extent that other Mormon churches claim the same mantle, they are still effectively distinguished from the LDS church in the proposed definition by our identification of the LDS church as being the biggest denomination. The only other way I can think of to discuss distinguishing features would be to lean more heavily on Brigham Young playing the Apostle Paul to Joseph Smith's Jesus Christ in ways that certain other fragments (including the second largest) do not appreciate. But there are yet other fragments which claim legitimacy from Brigham Young line as well, so I think it's best to just stick with the simplest origin in the first sentence. It strikes me as the least confusing way to mark this church's origination. jps (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the wording tracing its roots to its founding by Joseph Smith strikes a good balance. The church itself does indeed trace its roots to Smith and considers him its founder. This isn’t a super controversial claim that we need to cast doubt on, but we’re also not claiming in Wikivoice that this is the one true church founded by Smith. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Referring to any LDS denomination as Christian in wikivoice is entirely WP:UNDUE. That Mormons are Christians is a minority view, not held by mainstream Christianity. We should only make reference to the Mormon belief that they are Christian. TarnishedPath^talk 03:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not UNDUE when scholars regularly classify it as a Christian denomination. There's been several discussions about this before, you might want to check the FAQ linked at the top of this page if you haven't already. Obviously that doesn't mean everything is set in stone (consensus can change), but I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with the arguments people have had before if you want to try to go against the grain. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It's UNDUE insofar as it's not a mainstream view held by the Christian tradition. TarnishedPath^talk 03:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The article mentions this already in the comparison with Nicene Christianity section. That information is not ommitted entirely. WP:UNDUE states that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. I'd say that's done here. Academic sources typically describe the LDS Church as a Christian denomination so it's not UNDUE to say that in wikivoice. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. TarnishedPath^talk 03:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

To be fair that consensus is wrong or lacking in nuance... For example the most reputable non-Mormon but Mormon friendly scholar Jan Shipps concludes that the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has roughly the same relationship to traditional Christianity as traditional Christianity does with Judaism while emphasising that the answer to the question is largely dependent on framing and perspective [11]. Also I don't actually see a consensus either as described in the FAQ or a consenus to make a FAQ. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly enough these discussions aren't directly linked in the FAQ. They probably should be (instead of just a link to what the word consensus means). I can see why an FAQ was made though because it's definitely a recurring topic I've seen from time to time. Usually other people make more eloquent arguments than I have and I stay out of it. Anyways, I think content about Shipp's view could likely be included in the relevant section. I'm not sure what "Mormon friendly" is supposed to mean but if they're an academic writing about Mormonism then that's good enough for me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

In general the field of Mormon studies is divided into three parts: Mormons, non-Mormons who take a friendly view of the church, and non-Mormons who take a negative view of the church. Shipps is one of the most significant scholars in that second category. I can also guess at why an FAQ would be needed (Evangelicals who want to strip any reference to Christianity and other it) but I worry that the FAQ's wording might be going a bit too far in steamrollering any nuance out of the discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but worry this three-part division of Mormon studies itself lacks nuance; it reduces information to either being 'Mormon-friendly' or 'Mormon-unfriendly' which seems like it could be a matter of perspective across various topics.

As for Shipps's well-put point about context (the extent to which one takes 'Christian' to mean 'devotion to Jesus' or 'devotion to Jesus in line with a creedal geneaology that wends through specific historic confessions of faith') certainly matters and could, even should, be used to better contextualize the Comparison with Nicene Christianity section. Yet calling the LDS Church "Christian" still seems reasonable as a general characterization, such as in a high-level summary like a lead, since academia for decades has studied it as and called it Christian, though not 'mainline'/'orthodox', etc. E. g.,

• Nathan O. Hatch, Democratization of American Christianity ([[Yale University Press, 1989, pp. 113–122) regards the denomination as a Christian group
• Stephen Webb, Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn From the Latter-day Saints (Oxford University Press, 2013), calls it a branch of Christianity (2)
• Hokulani K. Ailau, A Chosen People, a Promised Land: Mormonism and Race in Hawai'i (University of Minnesota Press, 2012) calls it one among various other Christian denominations (40)
• Encyclopædia Britannica's article (last updated 2024) describes it as one of a number of Christian revivalist movements in early 19th-century, and its 'infobox' classifies it among "Christianity"

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

As with any generalization it could be made more nuanced... Down to the point of stating the position of each individual scholar in each individual moment of their career... But I think that three is the most useful breakdown. Note that it does not characterize the information at all, just the author. I am not opposed to saying its Christian, but you appear to be cherrypicking from those sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The word "denomination" is an interesting one to consider Christian denomination makes a pretty strong argument for considering a broad-tent approach. jps (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I started reading Shipps before but got put off by their opening paragraphs which weren't discussing the question but questioning what the asker of the question might mean.

@Clovermoss, agree that there should be links from the FAQ to discussions. When I read it before I found it very unhelpful to state merely that there was consensus without pointing to where that consensus was determined. TarnishedPath^talk 04:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not impressed by the FAQ. It doesn't offer any explanation or citations, or even say when this consensus was reached. It looks like the previous discussion about this also just ended by gesturing at a consensus with no links or elaboration. [12] Before that, there was this brief discussion that didn't go much in depth. [13]. It's not clear from a quick look at the archives when this consensus was reached, but it must have been years ago.

I think it's worth playing out this discussion, without leaning on the FAQ to dodge it. I'm going to make a new section for this. Otherwise, these discussions quickly get very hard to follow. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

#Theological criticism is probably the most recent discussion surrounding this topic (since it hasn't even been archived yet). Some sources are provided. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

My 2c: I'm in favor of the including in the first sentence the origin place/time and classification, as in the examples in the OP. Place: US. Time: "Second Great Awakening" is good because it gives context, but I'd also mention "1830" or "early 19th century" or something like that. For classification, I don't think "Christian denomination" tells the reader anything that isn't already communicated by the words "Jesus Christ" in the title. If it were a Muslim or Buddhist denomination with "Jesus Christ" in its name, then I think it'd be worth telling the reader that, but otherwise, the reader will figure out that the "Church of Jesus Christ of" anything is going to be Christian. "Mormon denomination" is more informative, as is "the largest." I don't think mentioning Joseph Smith in the first sentence is necessary, since the second paragraph already covers that. So for the first sentence, something like: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is the largest Mormon denomination, and was founded in the United States in 1830 near the end of the Second Great Awakening. Levivich (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think "Christian denomination" is more useful to a lay reader, assuming we're fine saying that in Wikivoice. If someone doesn't know what the LDS church is, they almost certainly won't know what a "Mormon denomination" is. And while "Jesus Christ" strongly suggests Christianity, I don't think this is unambiguous. Jesus is also an important figure in Islam, Messianic Judaism, and some new age beliefs (e.g. A Course in Miracles). Ghosts of Europa (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a longstanding principle at Wikipedia that a wikilink serves exactly this purpose. There are instances where this could be a problem, but I think this is a good approach here. Don't know what a Mormon denomination is? Go read this other article and then come back. Seems fair. jps (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Nontrinitarism -> Tritheism

Request to replace nontrinitarian to tritheist in the first sentence, and in the template: Nontrinitarian to Tritheism. Furawi (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you know of any high quality sources that call the church Tritheist? Non-trinitarian seems like a much more neutral term (the Tritheist article explicitly calls it a heresy and a "hostile label"), and it avoids opening a can of worms around whether the Heavenly Mother tips Tritheism into Tetratheism. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, two good points, thank you, then I don't want this change. Sorry. Furawi (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Mormonism -> Latter-day Saints doctrine

Request to replace Mormonism to Latter-day Saints doctrine (different link) in the template. Mormonism is the doctrine of all the denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement, and is not 100% accurate with the Church doctrine. Furawi (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should replace that link, but I have no objections to adding Latter-day Saints doctrine as a third link. jps (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

"Christian Denomination" in wikivoice?

Should we directly call the church a Christian denomination in Wikivoice, or should we hedge this categorization? What do the best quality non-LDS sources say?

• The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion [14] says that Mormonism is a modern, historical religion. It does not call it or the LDS church a denomination. It discusses the denomination question, but seems cautious not to take a stance, e.g.:
  • Scholars debate whether to categorize Mormons as a fourth Abrahamic religion (alongside Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), or as a separate branch of Christianity (alongside Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and perhaps Pentecostalism)
  • If a Christian is denoted as someone who subscribes to New Testament (and Book of Mormon) teaching that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, Savior and Redeemer of the world who atoned for the sins of all humanity, was resurrected on the third day after his crucifixion, and is the Messiah who will return to earth again in his Second Coming, then Mormons rank among the most devoted of Christians. Mormons insist on their Christianity, precisely on these grounds. If, however, a Christian is defined by belonging to a historical and theological tradition tracing back to the church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries and their resultant creeds, then Mormons do not fit.

Ghosts of Europa (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious how Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, etc.'s, Encyclopedias of Religions describe it (but too lazy to look it up myself). Levivich (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Most kind of dance around the issue, for example Brittanica[15] which calls it both a new dispensation (therefore as different from Christianity as Christianity is from Judaism) and also suggests but does not state that its a heterodox Christian denomination. For an interesting thought experiment I wonder how a proto-wikipedia would have categorized Early Christianity in the year 200 (about the same age as LDS)... IMO we would most likely have called them Jewish denonimations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I got somewhat the opposite impression from Briannica; its article describes it as having been founded as one among a number of Christian revivalist movements in early 19th-century, and its 'infobox' under 'areas of involvement' classifies it among "Christianity". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

"The religion Smith founded originated amid the great fervour of competing Christian revivalist movements in early 19th-century America but departed from them in its proclamation of a new dispensation." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah call it "Christian denomination" in wikivoice. Why that would be a problem? The article already explains that other Christian groups don't consider it Christian, but the Church it's Christian considered by both members and Church, but I would like to note other stuff that makes it Christian like believing that Jesus Christ is Lord of lords, King of kings, the Creator, the Savior, and God. The Church name and logo is the most Christian than it could be. According to members, the Church is led by Jesus Christ through the Prophet and Apostles as in the New Testament (Ephesians 4:11). Etc. Furawi (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I lean toward calling it a denomination as well, but I do want to see what sources say. I think Messianic Judaism is an interesting example of us going the other direction. Messianic Jews call themselves Jewish, but most Jews and Christians consider them Christian. Our article does say that they consider themselves Jewish, but it doesn't call them Jewish in Wikivoice. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about Messianic Judaism but "Christian denomination" or "Christian group" for this article is fine for me, all the stuff that I mentioned before are very Christian, I think this argument does not makes sense. Does the Holy Bible counts as a source? Furawi (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a source in the broadest sense, the way any text is a 'source', but it's not a secondary source or an academic source, and we wouldn't treat it as a reliable and independent source to cite for encyclopedic purposes, and its hard to imagine how it would apply in this situation anyway since the Bible predates the topic's existence and (even ignoring all other factors) can't verify any content about it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, obviously Latter-day Saints believe the Holy Bible is true, and that's very Christian. And they consider themselves as devotee Christians. The "reason" of why some don't call it Christian is because of the "Trinity", but Latter-day Saints believe in the Trinity, in a different sense, but they believe in it, and I could continue in saying why this Church is Christian. Furawi (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

While non-trinitarianism gets a lot of top billing among the exclusionary evangelicals, there are other reasons they question the "Christian" identifier: adoption of three additional scriptures, the devotion to Joseph Smith, and the esotericism of the Temple Rites. Not saying any of that should be disconfirming, but it's not just a matter of the Trinity. jps (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Where it is prohibited in the Holy Bible that there will be no additional scriptures?

2. There's no veneration to Smith.

3. What "esotericism"? Furawi (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Where it is prohibited in the Holy Bible that there will be no additional scriptures? I guess technically there's nothing in the Holy Bible that says we can't write new chapters!

But seriously, this discussion is a bit of a waste of time. Something is "Christian" on Wikipedia if WP:RSes say it's Christian, and it's not if not. So all that really matters is whether or not RSes describe LDS as "Christian." Wikipedia doesn't care if God thinks of something as Christian or not because WP:God is not an RS (that really should be a blue link). So far we have one good RS mentioned here, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion, which says that whether or not Mormons are Christian is the subject of scholarly debate. Levivich (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I don't like that of WP. I know it doesn't matters that I think that but it's like people don't have a vote. As you said, waste of time. Furawi (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, this process is likely to be much more favorable to the church than a “vote” would. The LDS church is a small religion in the grand scheme of things. Most Christians reject its theology, and tons of people only know about it from a Broadway show that mocks it. Deferring to Oxford can be frustrating, but it would probably feel worse to get outvoted by millions of Catholics who find the church heretical, atheists who disdain it, etc. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

That show misinterpreting the Church teachings kind of lost its popularity these years. Nowadays the first thought of people who aren't very aware of the religion is "why they can't drink coffee?". By the way, most of Latter-day Saints don't really care if other Christians, atheists, or other people think they are "heretics". Furawi (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Most religionists think they are right and everyone else is wrong, so it is hardly surprising that there are no hard feelings by religionists when the out-groups are exclusionary towards in-groups. This doesn't help us, however, because we need to take no sides in these insipid squabbles. Instead, we need to explain the situation so that someone who doesn't know the ins-and-outs can figure out what is going on. jps (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

A popular proof text used by many Christians to support the belief that the canon of Scripture is closed is Revelation 22:18-19. I'm just the messenger. Don't shoot me. jps (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude, were all written after Revelation. Furawi (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You need to understand that this discussion is not an argument over who is correct; I am just pointing out what the external world says. To the extent that Mormons have been unable to convince these exclusionist Christians that expanded canon is acceptable, this is the extent to which we need to understand them as not being part of the "Christianity" umbrella. We cannot do anything about this. WP:RGW. jps (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

With regards to the point about RSs, I think it is also helpful to look at large demographic studies by academic and non-sectarian sources. For example, the Pew Research Center in its demography reports such as "The Changing Global Religious Landscape" includes the LDS Church as a Christian subgroup (see Appendix E: Defining Religious Groups). The Library of Congress puts Latter Day Saint churches as a subheading under most Christianity-related subject headings. The ASARB in its 2020 US Religion Census puts Latter-day Saints in the Christian category (pages 56, 70, 244). The "Handbook of Denominations in the United States, 14th Edition" (2018) also lists Latter-day Saints as a subset of Christianity.

If we're looking at multiple Oxford sources;

• "The Oxford Companion to the Bible" - Mormonism and the Bible - "Mormons in the modern world remain Bible‐believing Christians but with a difference."
• "Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World" - Christianity - at the top of the entry says "For discussion of individual Christian denominations, see the following entries: Anglicanism; Catholicism; Church of England; Church of Ireland; Church of Scotland; Methodism; Moravians; Mormonism; Nestorian Christians; Orthodox Christianity; Pentecostalism; Pietism; and Protestantism."

There's a few others in the Oxford Reference catalog, but these seem to me to be the most explicit evidence that academic sources do use a broad-tent definition of "Christian".

I have seen some arguments leverage the intent of MOS:ID given some evidence of scholarly debate - the church self-identifies as Christian, therefore WP identifies it as Christian. (Personally, I'm not in favor of solely relying on this argument - I mention it just as what has been mentioned in previous discussions). --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about Messianic Judaism but "Christian denomination" or "Christian group" for this article is fine for me, all the stuff that I mentioned before are very Christian, I think this argument does not makes sense. Does the Holy Bible counts as a source? Furawi (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

"Christian group" is certainly a much less loaded term. I think I would be more comfortable with that label in WPVoice than "Christian denomination". jps (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The last time I remember this being hashed out was in 2011, back during the "Mormon Moment" with Mitt Romney running for President and Robert Jeffress calling Mormonism a "cult" and stuff. So the Christian-ness of Mormons was a heated topic for a while. Anyway, it kind of came to a head in this vote which is the closest thing to an RfC I found in the archives. In that vote, the first sentence was changed from

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (abbreviated as the LDS Church and colloquially referred to as the Mormon Church) is a nontrinitarian restorationist Christian religion and the largest denomination originating from the Latter Day Saint movement founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. in Upstate New York in 1830."

to

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (abbreviated as the LDS Church and colloquially referred to as the Mormon Church) is the largest denomination in Mormonism, a Christian primitivist movement started by Joseph Smith during the American Second Great Awakening."

That one ticked most of my boxes, including that it neatly side-stepped naming Smith as founder of the LDS Church specifically. (*pats self on back) It looks like that has drifted and evolved over time. Mormonism got changed back to Latter Day Saint movement. Christian primitivist got changed to Restorationist. And nontrinitarian got added back. And I can see reasons for some of those changes. The church has been trying hard since 2018 to "rebrand" away from the word "Mormon", so editors regularly show up here trying to remove the word. That might explain the "Mormonism" -> "Latter Day Saint movement" reversal. And conservative Christians often show up here saying that LDS are not Christian, in part because their conception of God is so different, so "nontrinitarian" got added back.

My personal opinion is that it's kind of silly to argue about whether people are Christian or not. If I had a dime for every person who thinks that they're the only ones doing Christian the right way... People can identify however they want, and there's no litmus test for whether people are Christian enough to be called that. Certainly Mormonism falls outside traditional Christianity, and I appreciate Jan Shipps 1985 take on it. The Ostlings (2000) has an entire chapter on the subject, and they also lean on Shipps. I've seen other sources as well classify Mormonism as being on the brink of being its own "world religion" with a relation to Christianity similar to the relation Chrisianity has with Judaism. That said, my impression has been that the LDS Church has been pulling back from that brink in recent years. There's been kind of a shift from "we're peculiar and proud of it" to "we want to be Christian like everybody else, please stop calling us Mormon."

Anyway, to the question, "are they Christian enough to be called a Christian denomination in Wiki-voice in the first sentence?" I don't have a clear answer. I would probably want a little more qualification. They identify as Christian certainly, and we can safely say that in Wiki-voice. (Though the words "identify as" seem to carry more political baggage these days than they used to.) And it's clearly fine to call them "Christian primitivists" or categorize them in the restorationist branch of Christianity. Anyway, sorry to be so long-winded. I hope it helped someone. ~Awilley (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

In the past, the community consensus (regarding using wikivoice to say the LDS Church or Mormonism in general was Christian) was usually reached or re-stated at higher levels. This is because such a consensus affects most higher level articles about Christianity or religion, which currently include the LDS Church or LDS movement under Christianity, with minor, if any, clarifications (eg Baptism, God in Christianity, List of Christian denominations, Religion). The topic has also been brought up before at NPOVN, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 22#POV about LDS Mormons belonging to Christianity for LDS and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 22#Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians? for JW. There were several discussions at Talk:Christianity 15-20 years ago, with this summary provided at one point. The arguments given supporting the consensus are usually based on the classification found in academic sources and self-identification. Consensus can certainly change, but given WP:LOCALCON it will likely need discussion at a broader community venue. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you link to that higher level community consenus? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Who is Christian anyway?

It is true that the World Council of Churches and National Council of Churches exclude Mormonism along with many other spin-off Christian churches due to doctrinal disputes. The tension here is between the LDS Church's latest approach towards self presentation which emphasizes its Christian nature with this exclusion from Christian ecumenism. Wikipedia should not take sides in this, especially as secular scholars see all these groups as being quite plainly connected. But, then again, these same scholars of New Religious Movements would include such movements as Christian Science, Unification Church, Branch Davidians, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Identity as part of this big tent. How we approach this understanding with approved "Wikivoice" declarations of categorization is not an easy circle to square. jps (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the WCC and NCC publications is also interesting. The NCC formerly published the "Yearbook of Churches in the United States and Canada" (I believe the ASARB is taking it over), which looked at Christian church sizes in US and Canada and included the LDS Church in the report. I've seen at least one WCC publication (RESPONSES OF THE CHURCHES TO HIV and AIDS IN SOUTH AFRICA) that listed the LDS Church under the "Other Christian Churches" category. So even while not engaging in ecumenism due to doctrinal disputes, they have at least published reports that cast a broad-tent definition of "Christian" with respect to the LDS Church. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that we can identify the Christian nature of the LDS Church as a general identification. Whether we call it a "Christian denomination" in WPvoice or not depends, I guess, on to what extent we are comfortable letting Mainline and Evangelical Protestants define "denomination" (lately, it seems "trinitarianism" has been the demarcation that a lot of them seem to work with which would exclude unitarians who have, ironically, been often included in Mainline Protestant definitions). I think a wide RfC on what can and cannot be included as a Christian Denomination may deserve discussion. If Jehovah's Witnesses are a denomination, then I am uncomfortable with LDS Mormons not being a denomination. jps (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)