Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Disputed edit Jan 24

@Jgstokes @Glman I noticed that you two have been deleting and restoring the same passage of text over the past few days. Let's talk it out here rather than continue to edit war. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. My biggest issue is the removal of sourced and relevant content. If it were unsourced and irrelevant, the removal would have been appropriate. But it is sourced, relevant, and accurate. That was the reason for my actions in this case. The text in question has been in the article for a while, which is why restoring it to the status quo was necessary. Thanks again. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 02:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jgstokes The content I removed has just been added. I did not remove old sourced content. Rather, I reverted a change that added new and removed old content. I in no way was engaged in an edit war. I never reverted a change multiple times. glman (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223 What are you referring to? I reverted one edit from the tagged user who reverted without context an earlier reversion that added and removed content. I do not believe this in any way constitues an edit war. glman (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You removed content after Jgstokes had restored it. When your edit was reverted you should have taken it here rather than remove it again. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223 My initial edit was a reversion of two consecutive edits by another user. Jg. reverted my reversion without an edit summary. I think it's just a misunderstanding of my initial edit. I'm good - just confused. Looks like my initial edit did not include "rv" in the summary. That's my bad. glman (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes it appears that way. My deepest appologies to you,@Glman for any mental stress that this may have put on you. I did not see that the text had been recently added. Really, that text probably should have been discussed here before addition to the artlicle. We can continue discussing the disputed text here. Again, my appoligies. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223 - You're good. I think we all just misunderstood. As I mentioned to @Jgstokes on their talk page, I'm open to editing with the current content. However, it was added and reverted in my initial edit, and I still don't feel it needs to be included in the lead. It also removed sourced content, which was my concern. glman (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

My concern was that you removed information that was sourced and relevant to the subject of the article in question. It doesn't matter whether or not it was a recent or longstanding inclusion. And such a removal should, per Wikipedia policy, have been discussed before any removal was undertaken. This article is being improved all the time, and unless I am mistaken, the disputed content in question was added by a longtime contributor to this article, and the information is correct in relation to the article subject.

If you have specific concerns about the edit, or a relevant reason for the removal of it, by all means, let's discuss that. And if you have improvements in mind for this article, that too can be discussed. But, per established policies, those changes should be supported by consensus before they are implemented. That's always been how Wikipedia works. And that's why I reverted the content you attempted to add twice.

If the consensus supports your removal of the information, and your proposed additions, I will stand behind that. But the removal before discussion and the establishment of consensus should not have occurred. Hope that explains my two reverts. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jgstokes I think you misunderstood my edit. All I did was revert two consecutive BOLD edits by razamachaz that removed longstanding sourced content and added content from a primary source. This is entirely allowed, and the discussion should have gone to talk page before readding the content I reverted. I returned the page to the STATUSQUO. I made no additions, I reverted a bold edit. Today, you reverted my reversion with no summary. Please review the history and you will see this is the case. The page should be restored to the status quo prior to Razamachaz' removal of content and addition of primary content. Then we can discuss if his content shuld be added. glman (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the editing history, which is why I know the information in question was added by a longtime contributor to this article, and that it is accurate information that shouldn't have been removed without discussion. I explained my reasoning, which is also consistent with Wikipedia policies. We'd be far wiser to move on. Aside from the fact that a primary source was used, that alone is not sufficent grounds for removal without discussion.

The information is both accurate and relevant to the article subject, and I believe it was also supported by secondary sources. If it wasn't, it can be. And again, it was added by a longtime contributor to this page (unless I am mistaken about that), so it shouldn't have been unilaterally removed without discussion.

Again, we can discuss any changes you may feel are appropriate, but, per Wikipedia policy, those changes shouldn't be unilaterally made without consensus support. If you want to discuss those changes now and the reasoning behind it, I'm all ears. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 04:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jgstokes It is absolutely appropriately to remove added content and discuss before readding. The opposite is not true. Not sure what policy you're referring to, but you'd got it backwards. I restored the page to STATUSQUO and you reverted my edit without an edit summary (WP:REVEXP ). I'm not concerned about the content of the edit at this point, but your reasoning does not make sense nor does it follow the policy. I restored the content to status quo, which is the accepted pracrice, with an edit summary, which is best practice. The page needs to be restored to status quo, which is before Raz's edit, and they/we can discuss the proposed change. That's how consensus works. I am not upset about the content, but I am frustrated by the assertion that I have not followed policy. glman (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

We can keep launching recriminations at each other all day, but that is not productive, nor is it addressing the key point at hand, not to mention it is a failure to assume good faith. Let's just agree that we were both in the wrong and move on. Do you have any other objections to the material in question other than it uses primary sources? Primary sources are allowed in some cases, especially when it is supported by secondary sources. And can you speak more about the changes you want to make and the reasoning behind them? User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 05:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jgstokes I have not launched any attacks at you. Please don't accuse me of acting in back faith when I followed policy, used edit summaries, and clearly explained what had occurred. The edit removed sourced content and replaced it with primary content that is not needed in the location. The removed content, at a minimum, needs to be readded. Again, we should restore the page to status quo and then dicuss adding the content, not vice versa. I agree this began as a misunderstanding, but in order to resolve it we need to return the page to the status quo and discuss. glman (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to jump in here. Completely unrelated to the process discussion above, and nothing personal, but:

I am strongly opposed to inclusion of the new material. Saying a religion invites others to “come unto Christ” is effectively meaningless at best, and implicit proselytizing at worst (POV). It doesn’t summarize what the rest of the article says, which is the point of a Wikipedia article’s lead section. The citation is a primary source, which comes with its own problems. And most of all, I could probably have picked just about any short passage of LDS scripture and say that’s what the Church teaches, and have it be just as strong of writing as this is. All of that to say, I think this new content represents a step backward in article quality. I would support a reversion. Trevdna (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention - per the recent Peer Review, we should be trimming the lead of its discussion of church beliefs, practices etc., not expanding it. Trevdna (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Trevdna These were my concerns as well. glman (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree, barring the presentation of independent secondary sourcing that can establish encyclopedic significance, the material in question is clearly WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMOTIONAL, especially in the lead section.

Church members believe to receive eternal life, they must "come unto Christ" and assist in God's work by living the gospel of Jesus Christ, caring for those in need, inviting all to receive the gospel, and uniting families for eternity.

Left guide (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Left guide and @Trevdna, thanks for jumping in. Based on the reasoning you provided, I can see your points. @Glman, I never said you were acting in bad faith. What I said was "We can keep launching recriminations at each other all day, but that is not productive, nor is it addressing the key point at hand, not to mention it is a failure to assume good faith." If you saw that as a personal attack, I apologize. I took a few days away from Wikipedia after I foolishly made our discussion more heated and antagonistic than it should have been, and I agree with Left guide and Trevdna that the material is not appropriate. I will return the material to the status quo before my foolish and uncalled for revert. Thanks to you all. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 04:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Outdated information

Reletively Recently, the church made a statement in support of the lgbtq movement, can someone please look into including this in the article, and find some secondary sources about this. Not a kitsune (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Article lead

As noted on the peer review, the lead in this article does not reflect the page content, which as around 40% content on criticisms of the church, where the lead has about two sentences. AIUI to meet GA criteria, the page should reflect the Manual of Style for the Lead section, which states that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."

As of present, the imbalance of the lead also violates NPOV, by de-emphasising the criticisms in relation to the sources, as reflected in the body of the page. Jim Killock (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Acknowledging I'm coming to this thread a bit later than it started, this does seem like a problem, though I can't help but think a more comprehensive solution would be to follow the advice of WP:CRITICISM and, rather than section off criticism and controversy into another section, to weave the content throughout. To use just one example, the section on Home and family would be a reasonable place to bring up polygamy and queerphobic teachings. The tithing and financial controversy sections could be combined into a financial practices section. Etc. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea; if the authors want to move the article to FA status as they have suggested, this kind of change is likely to make it easier to get there. Jim Killock (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Abortion

My edit was reverted. I added The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:Anti-abortion movement in the United States which seems acceptable. The challenge is: “ Church policy permits abortion in certain cases” which if properly researched, accounts for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being 1% against abortion. Here is the citation: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/ First sentence: “ Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.” Thus, The Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder-day Saints are 99% against abortion, meaning, it should most certainly be represented. Twillisjr (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

A reversion does feel extreme. Couldn't this be kept and edited slightly to reflect the exceptions that LDS believes are reasonable? Jim Killock (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've misunderstood as it's about adding a category, not general information. I think this depends on how the anti-abortion movement frames itself, and that is beyond my expertise to know. Jim Killock (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

In 2016, the Pew Research Center released this chart: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/06/21/where-major-religious-groups-stand-on-abortion/ft_16-06-22_churchabortion/ and the same edit was done to the Catholic Church page without resistance. Twillisjr (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

That seems clear. I see there is a Wikipedia page that makes the same point. Jim Killock (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a distinction between having anti-abortion teachings and being part of the anti-abortion movement in the US. With the Catholic Church (to which the category was added only a few days ago by the OP, so not a good indication of WP pattern) there were official groups within the church, such as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, involved directly in movement events and efforts. I don't know if there is anything similar for the LDS Church. I am not seeing any other religious groups or denominations with similar teachings on abortion being included in the category. Also, the phrasing of the movement's WP page which says the movement "finds support in" various religious groups seems to imply that there is overlap but not outright partnership or membership by the actual churches. Certainly there are LDS that are part of the anti-abortion movement, but there are also LDS that are part of the pro-choice movement. Further, categories should be apparent from the body of the article - what text in the article supports this categorization? --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Views on birth control in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has some information, in the abortion subsection, which can be improved with some of the information and citations I’ve provided. Then, excerpts may be shared with the main page. Category follows. Twillisjr (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

2 Months Later: “Abortion” isn’t in the article. Twillisjr (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Formerly referred to as Mormon

The name Mormon Church is inaccurate, confusing, and disrespectful to the members of the church. Why not use the actual name which the church identifies with, rather than insist on using a nickname that the church rejects? Truth971 (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Refer to the FAQ at the top of the talk page Fanfanboy (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Instagram post on women

@Trevdna, Regarding this, my gut says it's more than can be dismissed as WP:Recentism. Two days after the SLTribune article used as a source in the above edit, the NYTimes picked up the story. Link to NYTimes story (There's also a copy on Yahoo News that's less likely to be paywalled.) ~Awilley (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Can they really be called Christian?

The LDS rejects many of the key beleifs that make Christianity as we know it today. If you ask Christians from any of the major or early denominations, especially if you ask religious leaders from these denominations, they will reject that this group follows Christianity. I have seen some religious maps representing the Mormons in a separate category, apart from Christians. KeymasterOne (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

As per the FAQ, "there is a consensus that reliable academic sources generally agree that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian denomination." And as a member myself, I see other Christians treat the Church as Christian. Fanfanboy (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

LDS theology espouses beliefs regarding the nature of God, which include the concept of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as distinct beings rather than the traditional Christian understanding of the Trinity. Christianity is a monotheistic religion, I don't see how it would be possible to describe the trinity as distinct beings. The LDS church also contains additional scriptures on top of the Bible. These are not even all of the beliefs that the LDS encompass, which are separate to Christianity. KeymasterOne (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What matters is what the majority of reliable sources refer to the denomination as and that is Christian. I see people getting upset sometimes about Jehovah's Witnesses for similar reasons. Wikipedia isn't about people's personal opinions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed many times on the talk page. The consensus is to describe the church as Christian. Please check the talk page archives to see if your opinions have already been discussed. Bahooka (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not about personal opinions here. The Catholic, Orthodox and many Protestant denominations reject these new scriptures, and the claim that Joseph Smith is a prophet. How could they be Christians if most of these churches, encompassing the clear majority of the world's Christian population all reject the Mormon theology? If it is about personal opinions, as you mentioned, here's mine:

The only difference between Islam and the LDS' closeness to Christian theology is that Muslims themselves agree that their religion is separate from Christianity, while the LDS members disagree that their religion is separate from Christianity.

But since Wikipedia is not a good place for personal opinions, I didn't post that. KeymasterOne (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

How could they be Christians if most of these churches, encompassing the clear majority of the world's Christian population all reject the Mormon theology? This is where you are getting into your own personal opinions even if you don't realize it. The majority of religious scholars (again, summarizing what reliable sources say is what we do) define this as a Christian denomination. Again, listen to what other people are saying in the archives of this talk page. This information does not contradict that other denominations have their own interpretations on theology and the approach taken in this article is consistent with our policy on a neutral point of view. A Wikipedia article isn't going to tell you that any religion is the true one or that others are false. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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.****

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 [5] and [6]. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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 [7]. 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. [8] Before that, there was this brief discussion that didn't go much in depth. [9]. 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)

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 ([10]) and User:Jgstokes ([11]) 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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander|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 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. [12], [13]). 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)