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

Mormonism -> Latter-day Saints doctrine

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

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

Having both Mormonism and Latter-day Saint doctrine could be confusing and I think is not the best. Any more opinions, anyone? Furawi (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has been very active recently, but no one talked about this, thus I'm replacing "Mormonism" in the template (for what I already mentioned), but I added a note. Furawi (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

"Christian Denomination" in wikivoice?

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

• The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion [1] says that Mormonism is a modern, historical religion. It does not call it or the LDS church a denomination. It discusses the denomination question, but seems cautious not to take a stance, e.g.:
  • Scholars debate whether to categorize Mormons as a fourth Abrahamic religion (alongside Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), or as a separate branch of Christianity (alongside Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and perhaps Pentecostalism)
  • If a Christian is denoted as someone who subscribes to New Testament (and Book of Mormon) teaching that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, Savior and Redeemer of the world who atoned for the sins of all humanity, was resurrected on the third day after his crucifixion, and is the Messiah who will return to earth again in his Second Coming, then Mormons rank among the most devoted of Christians. Mormons insist on their Christianity, precisely on these grounds. If, however, a Christian is defined by belonging to a historical and theological tradition tracing back to the church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries and their resultant creeds, then Mormons do not fit.

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

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

Most kind of dance around the issue, for example Brittanica[2] which calls it both a new dispensation (therefore as different from Christianity as Christianity is from Judaism) and also suggests but does not state that its a heterodox Christian denomination. For an interesting thought experiment I wonder how a proto-wikipedia would have categorized Early Christianity in the year 200 (about the same age as LDS)... IMO we would most likely have called them Jewish denonimations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. There's no veneration to Smith.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we're looking at multiple Oxford sources;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is Christian anyway?

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

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

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

I apologize - it was not clear to me that the focus of your concern was whether it could be a "denomination" or not. TarnishedPath's initial concern and the heading of this subsection made me think the concern was about the "Christian" descriptor. If the majority of academic reliable sources use that terminology, then WP should to. The ASARB calls it Christian and a denomination in its 2020 census, as does the 2012 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches published by the NCC, as does the 2010 The Blackwell Companion to Religion in America, as does the 2018 Handbook of Denominations in the United States, 14th Edition. Do we have a RS that calls it something besides a denomination. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources which claim it is not part of the "denominational structure" of American Christianity. Whether relevant or not to our purposes is another question. For better or worse, "denomination" is a loaded term. "Religious group" less so. jps (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

New attempt at lead presentation

I tried to digest what everyone was saying up above. Actually, I think we are getting closer to a consensus. I hope people agree that moving towards a lede sentence that emphasizes the Mormon-ness and the founding by Joseph Smith is preferable to a "religious studies" approach that leans on doctrinal considerations and Christology. My feeling is that most readers who need to actually know what this church is are better served by being up front about their common IDs: Mormonism, two-hundred-year history... that sort of thing. Theology and doctrine absolutely deserve discussion in the lede, so I moved some of that discussion below along with an attempt to (I hope neutrally) describe the ongoing discourse surrounding the LDS Church's inclusion or exclusion in big-tent Christianity. I imagine that many may object and maybe you want to revert wholesale or put in other edits and tweaks. That's fine with me. But given the slow down in discussion, I thought it time to act.

Hugs and Kisses,

jps (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Just in case you need a link to the version I am referring to above: [3]. jps (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"The...Mormon Church, is the largest Mormon denomination..." If your goal was to emphasize the Mormon-ness of the church, I'd say you've over-achieved it. "Mormon denomination" is an odd term that I can't say I've heard used more than a handful of times, most of them here on this talk page. So if reflecting reliable sources is a goal, you've missed it on that point. ~Awilley (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm all ears for a better way to describe the situation. How do you describe the collection of churches that claim origination with Joseph Smith? How do you identify individual groups? Are you accusing List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement as being out on a limb, or is it the connection of "Mormon" with "denomination" that has you scratching your head? jps (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's the two words "Mormon" and "denominations" together that I continue to find odd. I don't have any problem with List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement. It's fine to say it's the largest denomination in Mormonism. It's fine to say it's the largest denomination in the Latter Day Saint movement (though I think that term is overused on Wikipedia compared to other sources, though you can probably see why, because it is convenient). I'm fine with saying it's the largest of the churches that originated with Joseph Smith. ~Awilley (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Got it. I have to admit confusion that "Mormon denomination" and "Denomination of Mormonism" hit different, but it's good to understand that clearly now. jps (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That edition is very confusing in my opinion, and I already complained about it in a recent edition I did (in the perspective of the members the edition is not neutral), but I wanna comment more stuff. I think adding "as a restoration of the original primitive church" is important, and I combined lines of the differences with other groups so is not redundant. If someone has a trouble with my edition, I'm glad to discuss. Furawi (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I prefer jps's version (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.) over your version (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is a Christian church which is the largest Latter Day Saint group, tracing its roots to its founding by Joseph Smith during the Second Great Awakening, as a restoration of the original primitive church.). Among the reasons: we shouldn't say "is a Christian church" when that's disputed by scholars; "Latter Day Saint group" is jargon; "original primitive church" is jargon, and we shouldn't say it is a restoration of the early church in wikivoice, as that's a subjective claim not an objective fact (similar to "Christian"). Levivich (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Other scholars agree is Christian; "Mormon denomination" is also jargon ; "original primitive church" is not jargon (that's actually a very talked topic in Christianity) and with my text in WP I'm just implying that Smith founded the Church as a [according to Smith] restoration of the original primitive church. Furawi (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

In the thread above, we looked at three Oxford encyclopedias, and the newest one (the third link, 2015) says it depends on what you mean by "Christian," and that while Mormons are followers of Jesus Christ, and are Christian in that sense, they do not belong to the Christian "historical and theological tradition tracing back to the church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries and their resultant creeds." Also, they do not believe other Christians are properly following Jesus Christ. So Mormons are not "Christian" in the sense that other "Christians" believe themselves to be "Christian"--according to the RS, both Mormons and Christians believe this to be true, that Mormons are not Christians in this sense. In the sense that LDS are "Christians" because they follow Jesus Christ, that much is already communicated by the name and title of this article: "Church of Jesus Christ". So adding "Christian" doesn't add anything in the followers-of-Jesus sense, but it significantly risks misinforming the reader in the other sense, into thinking that LDS is "Christian" in the sense of being part of the "historical and theological tradition tracing back to the church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries and their resultant creeds" and not just followers of Jesus Christ. So that's why I sort of oppose saying that they're "Christian" in the wikivoice in the first sentence. I think the explanation about whether or not they're Christian can be given elsewhere in the lead, maybe even in the first paragraph, but not in WP:WIKIVOICE (Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice...) as part of WP:LEADSENTENCE (The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English., because that wouldn't follow the guidance of those pages.

I don't think "Mormon denomination" is jargon; neither the adjective "Mormon" nor the noun "denomination" would be unfamiliar words to the average reader, at least IMO. We could instead say largest Mormon church to make it even less jargon-y.

The fact that LDS is restorationist isn't a particularly meaningful distinction, as has been discussed at length elsewhere on this page. I think that's another fact that can be relayed elsewhere in the lead, maybe even in the lead paragraph, but not in the lead sentence, for WP:LEADSENTENCE reasons--"restorationist" doesn't tell the reader what LDS is, because many other churches are also restorationist. IMO, jps's version is better at conveying the what/who/when/where in plain English. Levivich (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"That Mormons are not Christians in this sense", exactly, Latter-day Saints are not based in "the church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries and their resultant creeds", but being Christian is not exclusive to the "historical" or "mainstream Christianity" (which is the Nicean Creed). I think that's a bit obvious. "Adding 'Christian' doesn't add anything in the followers-of-Jesus sense, but it significantly risks misinforming the reader in the other sense", no, again, being Christian is not exclusive to the "historical Christianity", yourself even said it "followers-of-Jesus sense", but I agree that adding "Christian church" is kind of redundant, but if we simply add "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [...] is the largest Latter Day Saint denomination" could be confusing and it could be interpreted that the denomination is not Christian. That's why I think using Christian doesn't breaks WP:WIKIVOICE policy.

Again, using "Mormon denomination" is not neutral, the Church and the Community of Christ (the two largest Latter Day Saint denominations) rejects these words, and the ones who don't reject it are the fundamentalists, which are very few. Also, "[...] Mormon Church is the largest Mormon church" is very weird.

There's few "restorationist churches", at least very relevant, but I think having restorationist in the lead sentence is important, that's the classification and / or the theology of the Church, important stuff that should be in the lead sentence. Furawi (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Who cares if the churches reject the word "denomination"? If this term is the way that they different member congregations are best understood, that's tough cookies. I am all in favor of trying to hew as close to the understanding that people have, but Mormons' technical squabbles with wording that prevents us from offering plain descriptions to our readers is a problem. I don't care if we use the words "Mormon denominations" or something else, but it has to be understandable. No, "Latter Day Saints groups" is not understandable. jps (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about the word Mormon, is important for the neutrality of the article. Anyways "Mormon denomination" or "Latter Day Saint denomination" has the same level of understanding for a casual reader, Mormon is not easier to understand, both needs context. Furawi (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I largely agree with Levivich's points. I think ජපස's version improves on what we had before, and we should use it as our baseline for further discussion. I agree that the primitive church idea is too jargon-y for the very first sentence (it's arguably worse than "restorationist" — if a reader doesn't know the specific Christian context, they may interpret "primitive" as an insult!)

I'm still not in love with the "Mormon denomination" language, but I understand it as a description and a way to avoid the thorniness of saying "Christian" in Wikivoice in the first sentence.

I feel like we should explain the Mormonism vs LDS Church distinction in either a new Definitions section or a footnote. Even with the wikilink, I think it's a confusing distinction that most readers won't understand. We kind of explain this in the History section, but I don't think that's an obvious place to look for readers who are confused. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm still a bit lost on why calling the LDS Church Christian is so 'thorny' when that seems to be how academic sources identify the group. Wikivoice is used for [u]ncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources, and academic sources are the most reliable sources. Saying it's thorny seems to rely on denominational disputation rather than on sociological classification, and it hadn't been my impression that popular attitudes among Evangelicals are a reliable source for religious studies. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

On investigating the academic sources which deal directly with the question: "Are Mormons Christians?", I found that they tend to answer with the "it depends on what you mean by 'Christian'" answer. jps (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"Primitive church" is about the early Church, The Church itself doesn't take it as an insult. But I don't mind replacing "primitive" to "Christian" or other word, or we can write "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [...] is a Christian church in the Restorationist sense" (or we could use denomination instead of church).

Using explicitly "Mormon denomination" where the two largest denominations reject that word is not neutral. And if we don't add the word Christian it could interpret that the Church is not Christian. Furawi (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is, as pointed out above, that this doesn't identify the LDS Church uniquely. There are plenty of other churches that call themselves "Christian in the restorationist sense". What makes this church special? jps (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is a Christian church which is the largest Latter Day Saint group, tracing its roots to its founding by Joseph Smith during the Second Great Awakening, as a restoration of the original primitive church" What I bolded is what makes it "special", other thing that makes it "special" is the nontrinitarist theology, I would recommend adding nontrinitarist somewhere in the lead sentence. Furawi (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The second bolding does not make the LDS Church special. I don't know how to be clearer than that. A nod to restorationism is fine, but a front-and-center definition is just confounding.

Also, we should avoid leading off with "is a Christian church" as a primary demarcation. This is because there is controversy. I'm sorry, but putting it forward in WPVoice without clarification is just too WP:ASTONISHing. We can, of course, identify its self-identification, its Christian origins, its Christian doctrines, and how others have accepted it as Christian, but since there are exhausting arguments over whether and how the LDS Church has deviated from "Christianity", as Wikipedia we are under an obligation to at the very least not mislead the reader into believing otherwise.

One option might be to say, "...is a self-identified Christian church...." or "...calls itself a Christian church...." That is inarguable. I don't like it because it is a bit WP:WEASELy, but the alternative is probably just omission altogether.

jps (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes it does, can you think of 10 "restorationist churches"? 15? 15 is very far from plenty.

Being Christian is not exclusive. Before all this discussion the identification as Christian was already there.

The self-identification as Christian is already mentioned in the article. Furawi (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Where are you getting the numbers 10 and 15? Plenty, in this instance, means enough to cause confusion. And whether you think being Christian is exclusive or not is irrelevant. There are sources which indicate controversy and we are not here to argue that those sources should be ignored. jps (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

How "restoration of the one true church founded by Jesus" is confusing? and how "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Mormon denomination" is not? if we simply add "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [...] is the largest Latter Day Saint denomination" could be confusing and it could be interpreted that the denomination is not Christian. I don't know how to be clearer than that. Furawi (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad our shared goal is being less confusing. But I am now a bit concerned that you don't want the reader to come away with an interpretation that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "not Christian". I don't think that's something we should be trying to influence directly. Ours is not to try to influence the reader to think that the LDS Church is or isn't "Christian" given the controversy, as silly as you or I may believe it to be. Our job, rather, should be to make it clear that (1) The LDS Church considers itself Christian, (2) The LDS Church has a lot of shared features with other groups that consider themselves Christians, and (3) There is a controversy over whether the LDS Church is "Christian" or not. If the reader comes away understanding those three things, surely that's the best outcome in terms of what WikiPhilosophy holds. jps (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

One thing I guess we need to discuss is exactly what to call all the different groups that descend from Joseph Smith's founding of a new church. "Denominations" carries with it the advantage that it is a grouping of congregations that all agree to a shared communion, coherent dogma, and assurance of divine approbation. What other word offers the same? jps (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a properly begged question, then, whether the "restoration of the original primitive church" is entirely in line with the actual church in question. Early Christianity shares very little in common with the LDS Church and, so, we would have to explain that in some depth if that was what we were interested in frontloading. Restorationism, in contrast, identifies the social phenomenon of people believing that this is what they were doing while avoiding the possible contradictions with, say, the academic study of comparative religion. jps (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"[...] as a restoration of the original primitive church" just means that Latter-day Saints believe that Smith restored the one true church founded by Jesus Christ. Do you have a better way to explain that? Furawi (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"The Church believes that it is a restoration of the one true church founded by Jesus Christ" is a far better sentence than the one you put in the article. jps (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is a nontrinitarian Christian church which is the largest Latter Day Saint group, tracing its roots to its founding by Joseph Smith during the Second Great Awakening, as a restoration of the one true church founded by Jesus." Furawi (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Nontrinitarian is too in the weeds and begs too many questions since it's not unitarian and it is not really defined so much by that as it is by a rather elaborate cosmology. As well, you have removed the crucial "the Church believes it is a restoration of the one true church" and replaced it with wording which states it as fact in WikiVoice. This is not a fact to WP:ASSERT. This is a matter of dogmatic belief. jps (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I don't mind nontrinitarian being removed but you requested "special characteristics". I already explained above that sentence is not trying to be a "fact". What about "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is a Christian church which is the largest Latter Day Saint group, tracing its roots to its founding by Joseph Smith during the Second Great Awakening, believing that is the restoration of the one true church founded by Jesus." Furawi (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is too much detail for a single sentence. Compare this against the Featured Articles Rastafari and Santería. Their first sentences give a very, very high-level overview, with barely any mention of what the religions believe. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think is unnecessary big though. Furawi (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the defining sentence should be short, sweet, and to the point. I don't think we need to say it is a "Christian church" and, indeed, think it is problematic to do so. I think saying "Mormon denomination" is probably easier to understand than "Latter Day Saint group" in spite of the anger Mormon denominations express over being called Mormon denominations. We can say in a separate sentence that the LDS believe they are restoring a one true church. jps (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the positive gain of creating new threads every few days about basically the same subject (revising the lead)? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

One positive gain is lvl2 headings make it easier to follow and participate in the current discussion on mobile than long single threads or multiple lvl3 threads. Levivich (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Essentials for the 1st sentence

Before y'all go wild editing the first sentence and wordsmithing competing alternatives, I thought it would be helpful to try and find some common ground on what should and shouldn't go into that first sentence. Or at least clarify what issues need to be discussed. Here's a list of items that you can vote on by typing or signing () your username in the appropriate column. Anybody is welcome to add items to the list. Awilley (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What belongs in the first sentence?

Text	Belongs	Doesn't belong	Maybe	Aggregate score
Nickname "LDS Church"	Awilley jps Levivich Ghosts of Europa			4
Nickname "Mormon Church"	Awilley jps Levivich Ghosts of Europa			4
Call it a "Mormon" denomination/church		Awilley Furawi	jps Levivich (already implied by "Mormon Church") Ghosts of Europa (lean against because this is confusing to lay readers, but maybe with an explanatory footnote)	-2.5
Call it a "Christian" denomination/church	Furawi	jps Levivich	Ghosts of Europa (lean against for consistency with pages like Christian Science)	-1
Reference "Mormonism"	Awilley(lean neutral)	Furawi	jps Levivich (no reference needed beyond "Mormon Church" and/or "Mormon denomination") Ghosts of Europa	-0.5
Reference Joseph Smith	jps		Awilley(lean support, or 2nd sentence) Furawi Levivich Ghosts of Europa	1.5
Latter Day Saint movement	Furawi (if "biggest church in..." is added)	Awilley Levivich (because it's already referenced in 1st sentence: it's in the name)	jps Ghosts of Europa	-1
Link to List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement	Furawi (if "biggest church in..." is added)		Awilley jps Levivich Ghosts of Europa	1
Reference Christianity (eg. Christian primitivism)		jps Levivich (because it's already referenced in the name)	Awilley(lean support) Furawi Ghosts of Europa	-1.5
Second Great Awakening	Levivich Ghosts of Europa		Awilley jps Furawi	2
Location of founding (eg. United States)	Awilley(weak support...see 2nd sentence) Levivich Ghosts of Europa (for consistency with Rastafari and Santería)		jps Furawi	2.5
Founding date (1800s or 1830)	Awilley Furawi Ghosts of Europa		jps Levivich	3
"Nontrinitarian"		Awilley jps Levivich Ghosts of Europa	Furawi	-4
Restoration (or restorationism)	Furawi	jps (okay with mention in the second sentence as a part of major beliefs of how the church sees itself) Levivich Ghosts of Europa (too jargony for first sentence)	Awilley(as a wikilink from Christian primitivism)	-2
"Biggest church in..."	jps Levivich ("largest Mormon church" or similar)		Awilley(lean oppose) Furawi Ghosts of Europa	1.5
"Christian church"	Furawi	jps Awilley(would need some qualification) Levivich	Ghosts of Europa	-2

Side note: I think it would be a good idea to revert the Lead to some kind of status quo ante, because it's getting a bit out of hand swinging back and forth between dramatically different ideas. Awilley (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think swinging back and forth between dramatically different ideas is fine. WP:NOTPAPER after all. jps (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What we could do is add a note in the words "Christian church" and the note could be: "It is often included in the lists of larger Christian denominations, though some Catholics, Mainline Protestants and Evangelicals have considered the church to be distinct and separate from mainstream Christianity due to doctrinal differences. The church and its members strongly identifies as Christian." But having Christian church or denomination is important because it could be interpreted that the denomination is not Christian. Furawi (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Good idea; thanks for setting the table. Levivich (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I added my own little tally of with scoring +1 for support, -1 for oppose, 0 for maybe, and fractions for leaning comments. jps (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's a great idea. I didn't include "leaning comments," for example, and I don't really want to. I don't think trying to reduce this to a number is helpful. Because if we're going to score it like this, then I'm going to change a bunch of my maybes to belongs/doesn't belong, but that's also a problem because in my view, there is a lot of overlap. So "Mormon" should be mentioned somewhere, but not 3 times, so I don't want to vote "Belong" three times, I'll vote "maybe" three times, but that doesn't mean it should be scored as a "0". It's too complicated to reduce to a number. Levivich (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I get it. I am perfectly fine with people hating the rating system and trashing it completely, but, in spite of its obvious problems, it helped me get a general picture of what was going on. jps (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"Biggest church in..."

... please fill in the blank.

Please, because apparently "Mormonism" or "LDS Movement" are both not our favorites.

jps (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"largest Mormon church" or "largest Mormon denomination," don't care which one, as I understand this to be what the RS say, but if they say "largest [something different]," then go with that. Levivich (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Largest Mormon church works for me, although it is redundantly confusing with our "aka Mormon Church". Apparently, they don't like "denomination" as a way of describing themselves. "Largest Latter-Day Saints Group" seems wacky to me. "Largest group that claims descent from the church Joseph Smith founded" is the most accurate, but also pretty clunky. jps (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"...Salt Lake City, Utah." Finding the highest ranking or size we can claim for the church is a job for the church's PR department. Figuring out how to shoehorn that into the article as early as possible is not a good use of valuable volunteer time, in my opinion. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Committee consensus

Including only those points which have a positive rating by my clumsy scale, I get:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is the largest church that traces its founding to Joseph Smith in 1830 during the Second Great Awakening in the United States of America.

jps (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

My ideal would be:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is the largest denomination in Mormonism, a Christian primitivist movement started by Joseph Smith in 1830 during the American Second Great Awakening.

Pros:

• The first link is to the more general article Mormonism (the world religion that the reader may have heard of) instead of an egg-y link to list of churches that the reader has almost certainly never heard of. Mormonism is the single most relevant article to this article, so putting its link first makes sense.
• The "Christian primitivist" link, by being a bit jargon-y, hints to the reader that this is not your garden variety American Christian church (as one might assume from the name, the logo, and the link to the Second Great Awakening). Readers who follow the Christian primitivism link will be able to compare Mormonism against other "restorationist" churches arising in the same era like Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists. This will be far more useful to a general audience than comparing the LDS Church to the churches in List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement.

~Awilley (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The second-listed suggestion (that starts, after the second comma, with the phrase is the largest denomination in Mormonism, a Christian primitivist movement etc.) is the one I would favor. It links to more accessible articles (Mormonism and Christian primitivist/restorationism (being different terms for the same general movement, per the article); I recognize that 'primitivism' and 'restorationism' are religious studies jargon potentially unfamiliar to a general reader, but they're not going to be more unfamiliar than the WP:EASTEREGG-like link of 'largest church' leading to List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement, an even less-widely-familiar term full of less-generally-familiar content), and to the extent that describing Mormonism as Christian depends on what one means by Christian, I would expect wikivoice to generally mean it in the religious studies sense of sociological identification (the way academic sources like Oxford Research Encyclopedias and Wiley-Blackwell Companions use the term) rather than in the devotional sense of theological adjudication. In that vein, the second-listed suggestion also seems the more encyclopedic, more like the way one would describe the topic from an academic perspective.

Meanwhile, the first-listed suggestion—sparser on religious studies and historical contextualization and throwing more of its its weight on Joseph Smith and List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement—reads more like how someone might explain the topic to an audience heavily defined by interest in Joseph Smith (and not to a general audience who may or may not be familiar more familiar with him than with the idea of Christianity or Christian primitivism, or at least enough sense about how scholarship is and how Wikipedia links are supposed to be used in articles to gather that in the study of the history of religion a term like Christian primitivism could be meaningful). Put another way, the first-listed suggestion might make a lot of sense as a way to introduce the LDS Church in an interfaith gathering of different Latter Day Saint/Mormon denominations that prioritizes the religious touchstone of Smith rather than a religious studies academic perspective ((i. e., a devotional setting, rather than a secular-academic one). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

My preferred secular academic definition of the LDS church would be "the predominant denomination of the Mormonism sect of Christianity". And let "Mormonism" do the heavy lifting. jps (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Your personal preferences are your own to have, but your successive personal preferences seem to keep sounding less and less like what one might read in an encyclopedia ("Mormonism sect of Christianity" is an especially novel and bewildering evolution of phrasing). Your personal objections to material and suggestions based on citations to academic encyclopedias and material are your own to hold, but these objections seem to be cited more to your personal inclinations than to reliable sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Why not try to respond to the substance of others' comments instead of constantly trying to second-guess the rigor of others' methods of writing Wikipedia? jps (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you care to explain what you find "bewildering" about the phrasing, feel free, but it is not apparent from your snark. jps (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Across some 180 comments, your substance has been responded to quite a lot. Since you keep pressing with that substance anyway, it's not unreasonable that your method has also been responded to by editors trying to help you understand why your substance isn't compelling. Rather than unnecessarily personalize my comment in an ongoing suspicion of other editors' contributions, why not note how in my comment, I explain that my bewilderment is from how un-encylcopedic your preferred phrasing is. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm here for when you decide you're interested in engaging in good faith. jps (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

What religious studies academic perspective are you seeing which doesn't prioritize Joseph Smith? All of the ones I can see treat Joseph Smith as the central figure of the LDS Church, most talk about him more than Jesus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

"Christian primitivist movement" does not seem to me to be the best foot forward for the lede sentence. Part of the problem is that "primitivism" implies a simplification which the LDS theology and doctrine most certainly is not. jps (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm almost fine with this, it just needs to mention about the restorationism. Can you please add it? It's important. Furawi (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there some reason you need it to be in the lede sentence? I don't think anyone objects to it being mentioned elsewhere, but as a first statement, it seems problematic. jps (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Because its an important characteristic, is not problematic as a first statement. A better question would be why it wouldn't be in the lead sentence? Furawi (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No. "Important characteristic" and "not problematic" are not answers to my query. Note that you are the only person supporting its inclusion strongly from our survey above. Why is it important? How is it not problematic? And what makes it worthy of the WP:LEDE sentence? jps (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure because every Wikipedia has talked in this discussion 5 persons have expressed their thoughts on this, very few, I don't know why it's a problem adding that, please explain why it's a problem. Furawi (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The word "restoration" appears 95 times on this page--in all that discussion, you don't understand what others' concerns are about putting that word in the first sentence? In sum: it's jargon, it's vague, and it's not unique to LDS, that's the problem with putting it in the first sentence. LDS's restorationism can be explained elsewhere in the lead. Levivich (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It's weird you say "it's jargon [...] and it's not unique" but that's kind of ironic how is jargon but at same time not unique, anyways WP is an encyclopedia, we can use "technical" words. Can you tell me why it's a problem adding that citing the WP policies? But how you can say that adding "restoration" in the lead sentence is "vague" when the current lead sentence is more vague? "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [...] is the largest Latter Day Saint denomination, tracing its roots to its founding by Joseph Smith during the Second Great Awakening" The most important thing there is that Smith "founded" the Church. It's important to note that because that's part of the origin of the Church, as you guys are mentioning the Second Great Awakening. Also this Church is not unique in having its origin in the Second Great Awakening. Furawi (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:JARGON. Levivich (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but restorationism is not that deep of technical, as it's common now (you say it's not unique) so people have heard about it, many people, and almost anyone could understand it by looking up what it means in the first search, not even a deep search. By your replies we should remove every word referencing the restorationism in the lead sentence of any church article that has it. Furawi (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would remove "restorationist" from every lead sentence of any church article that has it, including this one. Levivich (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't makes sense. Furawi (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It's WP:JARGON, and it's not a distinguishing of any church, because there are many restorationist churches. The distinguishing feature of the LDS Church is that it's the largest church that follows the Book of Mormon. That's LDS Church in a short one-sentence summary. Levivich (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

How many? 10? It's that many for you? I'm sorry to tell you but that's not many, I think the number is even lower. Even if it were actually many, there is not any problem in adding it in the lead sentence because that's the origin. It is important that the lead sentence is distinct, but it's more important that it's clear; the current lead sentence is not clear, nor is the one you provided. Also, if you don't wanna add the restorationist characteristic in the lead sentence it's fine, see my newest lead paragraph. Furawi (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I get having it in the lead, but I'm not sure I understand your insistence on placing it in the first sentence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Because "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [...] is the largest Latter Day Saint denomination, tracing its roots to its founding by Joseph Smith during the Second Great Awakening" is a bad first sentence because just mentions 1 important thing, that it was founded by Smith, but about the Church itself says nothing, but even that is incomplete because Latter-day Saints believe Smith was the restorer, so I think that's important to note "[...] Second Great Awakening, believing that they are the restored one true church founded by Jesus". If you guys have any other way to say that, tell it, but this "restorationist" characteristic is important enough to be in the lead sentence. How "largest Latter Day Saint group" is more important than that? Furawi (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

At this point @Furawi:, I think we need to revert you for WP:POVPUSHing. It seems you are trying to advocate too strongly for your religious beliefs to be reflected in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Lmao how? I stated what the Latter-day Saints believe. I'm saying this again. Furawi (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm just describing what this intransigence seems like at this point. Right now, the Second Great Awakening is in the lede sentence which is a far more descriptive way of saying "Restorationist Church" in my mind (granting that there are churches and movements coming out of that event which were not restorationist).

Here's a problem for you to consider: unlike the dialogues which have happened from time-to-time between different strains of Mormonism (at the very least, involving Temple Plot negotiations), there is essentially no interfaith communication among the restorationist churches. Insisting that we identify the overarching category as "restorationist" is imposing a group identity which is poorly defined. Mormons, of course, believe that they are the only true restorationists, but Wikipedia is not the place to make that case.

jps (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Keeping in mind Phil Agre's helpful advice about the intellectual advantages of not trying to fit everything into technical schemata, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is a religious organization founded in the United States in 1830." would seem to hit most of the affirmative points in the above table, while highlighting the essential nature of the entity named in the title, which is that it is a specific organization of people and resources, not just a set of beliefs. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Works for me! Maybe we could even say something like "is a church founded in the United States in 1830" since "religious organization" reads to me more like something like a fraternal order or, I don't know, The Heritage Foundation. jps (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with either of those variations; I think "church" is better than "religious organization." But -- and I know this isn't how Wikipedia usually writes leads -- I don't see the point of saying that "The Church of ... is a church" or "religious organization." Why not just say The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, was founded in the United States in 1830. Levivich (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Because it still exists, which a single statement about the past does not communicate. As for "religious organization", it encompasses the scope of the activities detailed throughout the article (e.g. not just worshipping and believing in stuff, but also investing in real estate etc), without relying on a particular reader or editor's understanding of "church". Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a lot of people think of "church" as synonymous with "building". What are other possibilities? faith community (woah! It's a redlink!), religious body, religious congregation, etc. jps (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you object to "religious organization" to the extent that you would contest the edit? Indignant Flamingo (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No. It's fine. Especially with the wikilink. I won't let perfect be the enemy of the good. jps (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

A few concerns - First, there are multiple churches and denominations, including the LDS Church, within the Latter Day Saint movement that claim that they are the rightful successor or continuation of the church found by Smith in 1830. The custom on WP has been to choose wording does not choose sides for NPOV reasons, which this recent proposal seems to fail.

Second, it seems to me that this recent proposal for the first sentence also fails to provide any of the distinguishing characteristics that make the church notable or uniquely defines the subject. Didn't we just have walls of text throwing out suggestions that did not uniquely define the LDS church or give the most distinguishing characteristic? This seems like a step backwards by that metric. Why the change in priority?

Third, I don't understand this recent claim that we cannot call it a "church". While a concern was expressed about repetitive use of the word, a review of several articles for other churches finds numerous examples of this (eg Catholic Church) so I don't feel like this is that significant of a concern of the WP community relative to church articles. Similarly no other article seems to avoid "church" because the entity is more than a set of beliefs. All churches are organizations of people and resources and more than just their set of beliefs. Is there an example of another article on wikipedia where there was the conscience decision to avoid the word for a church/denomination? --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Can't speak to the walls of text or other people's priorities. But they obviously haven't been terribly productive, have they? My suggestion is based on the the narrow intersection of things that people generally approve of in the table above. Since the proposed text doesn't say, e.g., "rightful", "only", or "Jesus' favorite", there's no NPOV issue unless you add some words in your head while reading. No one said "we cannot call it a church". After all, the word "church" occurs in the title, the first part of the first sentence, the next part of the first sentence, also the part after that, plus the rest of the lead paragraphs, plus the rest of the article. Everywhere, basically! If you agree that a church is also a religious organization, i.e. that it is a synonym, what's your actual objection? One example of "religious organization" that springs to mind is ISKCON (that's a redirect, I'm lazy), which also started in the US, operates temples worldwide, runs various kinds of facilities, has >10 million adherents, etc. Has some nice music, too, and in my experience they'll even feed you at their temples, no temple recommend necessary. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, so we don't get bogged down in arguing about stuff no one said, can you please clarify whether you object to the text I proposed, to the extent that you would contest the edit? Indignant Flamingo (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:SILENCE can be invoked. Please be WP:BOLD. jps (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in just getting my way by any wiki-means necessary. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Not saying you should, but it is sometimes nice to see what a proposed edit will look like even if it ends up reverted. I am perhaps more interested in moving fast and breaking things than others at this website. jps (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Indignant Flamingo (Sorry, RL issues kept me offline for a bit) Yes, I think I would contest the edit. If the initial premise that led to the creation of the table and challenging the long-standing text no longer applies, I prefer a variation of the status quo ante bellum lede sentence, which imo does a better job of summing up the what, who, and where. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that you did not add your views to the table at all. Which of the things in the table do you think should be in the first sentence? Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Then what about:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is a Christian church originated in 1830 by Joseph Smith during the Second Great Awakening, belonging to the Latter Day Saint movement. The church teaches that it's the restoration of the original Christian church established by Jesus. The church is headquartered in [...]".

Let's make it simple: I'm adding the word "Christian" because in the Latter Day Saint movement article says its a "Christian Restorationist movement", and because many other reasons I and others said, but if you guys still have trouble with that, then we can put a note there: "It is often included in the lists of larger Christian denominations, though some Catholics, Mainline Protestants and Evangelicals have considered the church to be distinct and separate from mainstream Christianity.<reference> The church strongly identifies as Christian. However, the Catholic Church considers doctrinal differences between the two groups to be so great that it will not accept a prior LDS baptism as evidence of Christian initiation, as it will baptism by other Christian groups, such as the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches.<references>" or if the consensus is to completely omit the word Christian in the lead sentence, then:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is the largest church of the Latter Day Saint movement, tracing its origin to Joseph Smith in 1830 during the Second Great Awakening. The church teaches that it's the restoration of the original Christian church established by Jesus. The church is headquartered in [...]".

I'm fine by one of those. I'm also fine if we use "church", "denomination" or "group". Furawi (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The church teaching that it is a restoration, I think, doesn't belong even as the second sentence. It's not particularly remarkable. Almost all churches believe that they hold a doctrinal monopoly and the fact that Mormons think they have restored something lost is a technical distinction unlikely to be useful as a second sentence to a reader who is coming here just wondering what on Earth this thing is. jps (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

No. Most of the Christian churches, specially the Protestant ones, don't think they are the original church, I counted like 15 in the one true church article, that's not all the Christian churches, not even a lot. The current lead paragraph is not enough as a first impression of the Church to someone who never has heard about the Church, it's vague. This is like if we omit the word "company" from a company article because there's many companies. Furawi (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You actually think that people who belong to a church don't think they belong to the original "correct" church? What a bizarre contention! I don't even know where to begin with it other than to say that you probably need a source for that. I anxiously await your demonstration that this is the case. jps (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

But it's the obvious truth, it is up to you to provide a source. Most of these churches that don't claim to be the "correct" ones are regional, ask Protestant or non-denominational persons what they are, and they will simply say: "Christians", they will not tell you the name of their church. Also, it's fine to add this because not all churches that claim to be "true" are restorationist. Furawi (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

"But it's the obvious truth" is clearly not good enough. jps (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Just research. Zion Christian Church, United Methodist Church, International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, United Pentecostal Church International, Jesus is Lord Church, Church of England, Southern Baptist Convention, Seventh-Day Adventist Church ("remnant church" not "one true church"). Most of Protestants believe in the baptism as members of a spiritual, not institutional, "Christian Church", invisible church. I hope it's clear for you now. There's no reason to don't add: "The church teaches that it's the restoration of the original Christian church established by Jesus". Furawi (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You are either so caught up in your own games that you aren't understanding what I'm saying or you are arguing for a distinction without a difference. Neither seems to be a particularly strong argument for your position. jps (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Well if you think I didn't understood you, you could have explained again in your previous reply but you didn't. I understood that you think that people who belong to a church think they belong to the original "correct" church, I said that's not actually true for most Protestants (which is a very big % of worldwide Christians) because some Protestants don't claim to be in the one true church, because that's not the belief of their churches, I attached some churches that don't claim to be the "correct" church. I said and I'm saying this again because I think that the sentence "The church teaches that it's the restoration of the original Christian church established by Jesus" it's important enough to be in the lead paragraph. I also said before that it's fine to add this sentence because not all the churches that claim to be the "true" church are restorationists. Furawi (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You have provided absolutely no evidence for your contention that these "some Protestants" "don't claim" as you say. Getting hung up on whether phrases are used exactly as you want to see them written is not the point. All of the wikilinks you provided show that there are significant numbers (if not majorities) of these adherents who think that they belong to the one, true church. Note the lack of quotation marks. jps (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thinking it again:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is a Christian<note> church originated in 1830 by Joseph Smith during the Second Great Awakening. The church teaches that it's the restoration of the original Christian church established by Jesus. It's the largest group in the restorationist classification, and in the Latter Day Saint movement. The church is headquartered in [...]".

Note: "It is often included in the lists of larger Christian denominations, though some Catholics, Mainline Protestants and Evangelicals have considered the church to be distinct and separate from mainstream Christianity.<reference> The church strongly identifies as Christian. However, the Catholic Church considers doctrinal differences between the two groups to be so great that it will not accept a prior LDS baptism as evidence of Christian initiation, as it will baptism by other Christian groups, such as the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches.<references>" (Also, the other lead paragraphs would also be changed to improve the writing). Furawi (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I see no difference between this suggestion and the previous one. The problem was not that you were missing a note. jps (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I added that the Church it's the largest group in the restorationist classification. Furawi (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

And that's original research. I see no reliable source which makes this claim. jps (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Source for ranking of the "denomination" or "religious group"

@FyzixFighter: You claimed that the source you found supports the wording that states, in Wikipedia's voice, that this church is the fourth largest Christian denomination. I have checked the page listed, and find that this is not the case. Here are the relevant quotes:

This growing de-Europeanization of American Christianity is reflected in some of the nine bodies in the United States with the largest shares of adherents in the 2020 U.S. Religion Census. These groups, ranked by size, include the 1) Catholic Church, 2) non-denominational Christian Churches, 3) Southern Baptist Convention, 4) United Methodist Church, 5) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 6) Muslim, 7) Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 8) Assemblies of God, and 9) Jehovah’s Witnesses.... The Catholic Church has been the single-largest religious body in the United States for over a century and accounts for almost 40% of adherents in the 2020 U.S. Religion Census.... Southern Baptists, currently the largest Protestant group in the United States (almost 11% of total adherents) also trace their roots to the colonial era, from Baptists who settled in the American colonies in the 17th century.... The third largest religious group is the United Methodist Church (5%), whose own geographic spread reflects the historical migratory patterns of circuit rider preachers and nation-wide expansion via the Second Great Awakening revivals (1790-1840), resulting in congregations spread far and wide so that now there is hardly a county in the nation without a Methodist congregation. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (fourth largest, at 4.2% of total adherents), persist in high numbers in Utah and Idaho, reflecting their westward trek in 1844 following mob violence and the murder of their founder Joseph Smith.

Unless you have another passage in mind, it is pretty clear to me that the source does not support the wording that implied it was the fourth largest Christian denomination. I suspect they might be claiming it is the fourth largest organized religious group, but it is unclear from the text as presented. They are either the fifth largest "group" or the fourth largest organized group or the fourth largest Protestant group (assuming that non-denominational Christian Churches could be considered Protestant).

jps (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is the ranking in the US relevent for the lead? This is a global encycopedia, the only relevant number if there is one is global. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It isn't. I would agree with its removal. But if we are going to include a statement that is sourced to the source listed, we should at the very least adhere to what the source actually confirms. jps (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Easy then... We just don't include it and this whole innane argument is moot. At the very least we clearly lack consensus to include their US ranking in the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'll support that move. jps (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@ජපස: As it says right there "fourth largest, at 4.2% of total adherents". And, as I've pointed out previously, the study clearly categorizes the LDS Church as a Christian denomination, as it also categorizes the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Therefore it does support the statement. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not clear from the plain reading that it is the fourth largest Christian denomination. in particular, Catholics often do not consider themselves to be a denomination and the source does not indicate that they are. By a strict accounting of Baptists and Methodists being denominations of Christianity, then the LDS Church, if it is a Christian denomination, would be the third largest~ jps (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree - it is clear from a plain reading of the source. One can also look at the table starting on page 88 and see that the percentages support the statement. Whether or not Catholics consider themselves a denomination is irrelevant if a majority of reliable sources considers them a denomination (like this report does). It appears to me that one must perform more linguistic acrobatics to intentionally avoid seeing how this report supports the statement. Given the disagreement, further DR options should be used - I'll raise the issue over on WP:RSN. --FyzixFighter (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The source is pretty clear that LDS is the 4th largest Christian denomination in the US. That Catholics don't consider themselves a denomination is simply a reflection that they consider 'denomination' to mean 'not the original Christians', not that they aren't a denomination. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a quote from the source which identifies Catholics as a denomination? jps (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"These groups, ranked by size, include the 1) Catholic Church, 2) non-denominational Christian Churches, ..."

If the Catholics weren't a denomination, they've be grouped in non-denominational Christian Churches. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

How do you reconcile that understanding with the statements on pages 80-81?

Perhaps the idea of a “denomination” was once a clear concept in our society when there were a few distinctive “brands” in the religious marketplace, but this is certainly no longer the case. Likely, this was never the case, but we have long assumed that “a formal denomination or religious group” is a clear and understandable concept that describes a discernable reality, when in fact it is not....

At its simplest, the verb “denominate” means to give a name to something or to designate it as distinctive. In this context, a “denomination” is a group of individual congregations that are identified by a particular name, based on a set of characteristics, be they theological, historical, covenantal, or relational. Typically, and usually within the Christian (and mostly Protestant) tradition, these characteristics include a set of common beliefs and practices, a shared history and heritage, relational ties, and collaborative training, resourcing, and outreach. The ideal conception of a denomination is one defined as a distinctive and exclusive national organization with a name, structure, leadership, and rules which distinguish its adherent congregations from other denominational groups based on these and additional characteristics.1 But is the ideal actually the reality?...

This ideal characterization of a denomination is formed out of a particular type of mainline Protestant, wealthy, usually Caucasian, and long-established organizational reality.

Looks to me like a strong case can be made for the term "denomination" to be mostly applicable to Protestant traditions.

jps (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

That's an extremely weak case.

https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/factsheets/catholic-church/

The Catholic Church, often called the Roman Catholic Church, is the biggest Christian denomination, with 1.2 billion members across the globe. Its name derives from the Greek word katholikos, meaning universal.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Mostly, is still not exclusively, and the mostly only shows up after the definition when they bring up the ideal characterization. The authors of this census report clearly understood that the term "denomination" was not exclusive to Protestant traditions. From page 56: "In addition, the Catholic church is one of the few non-Evangelical denominations to not lose membership over the last 20 years..." and from page 40: "Map 4 shows the distribution of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a percentage of the population. The denomination is no longer confined to the Great Salt Lake region..." This appears to be in agreement with other academic sources. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This means that to accept your opinion we must accept the minority context. I'm not convinced that this is the context under which the authors are writing. For example, the context of number four could be "Protestant groups". And that is a defensible ranking in a completely inarguable fashion excepting that there are certain assholes who claim that Mormons aren't Protestants. jps (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is most definitely NOT Protestant. The Protestant movement began with Martin Luther who “protested” certain doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, hence the name “Protestant.” Protestant denominations are off shoots of the Catholic Church as opposed to the LDS belief that their religion is a restoration of the original church established by the Lord Himself in the meridian of time. Dezoekster (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The LDS Church is listed at number FIVE of the groups listed in the survey. The claim you are making is that the "non-denominational" group two are the only possible group the authors intended on excluded from the parenthetical. But I see no clear demonstration that this is necessarily the reading especially as the entire chapter 11 of the report goes on about how these groupings are fairly arbitrary and up to the whims of the report writers. To claim that the non-denominational churches get to be excluded from the ranking while the Catholics are included even while both reject the "denominational" label means that the interpretation of the parenthetical that, for example, the authors were saying that the LDS Church is the fourth largest Protestant grouping in the US is necessarily incorrect. I see no clear demonstration of that.

To be clear, we are discussing a claim that people have written in WikiVoice that the LDS Church is the fourth largest Christian denomination, and this means that you are arguing that this is a fact. All I see, however, is arbitrary accounting and delineation of groups, and the source itself in its purest accounting clearly puts a number 5 in front of the LDS Church on first declaring the rankings.

So please explain how "fourth largest Christian denomination" is the only reasonable interpretation of the source's ambiguity when it comes to this.

jps (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You are reading this in the most tortuous way possible. If Catholics weren't a denomination, they've be included in group two 'non-denominational Christian churches'. So yes, 5th group, when you group the non-denominationals into one group, but 4th denomination. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't all that torturous. The source explicitly argues against any attempt to clearly define what is or is not a denomination. jps (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

How about we don't rely on a single source. If it's the fourth or the fifth or the third or whatever largest, find two sources that say that, maybe three or four. If we can't find multiple sources for a fact, it's probably not worth mentioning. Levivich (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The US Census US Religion Census is just about the best source possible for this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

But even with that source this still has absolutely no place in the lead, its unambigous Americentrism which we're not supposed to indulge in anymore. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a distinctly American religion. It belongs in the lead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources say that it is a global religion founded in America... They say that the majority of adherents do not live in the United States. You disagree? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Google search for "quintessential American religion" ~Awilley (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Leo Tolstoy doesn't seem to be a reliable source for the current state of the church, he died more than 100 years ago. What current sources say that the majority of followers are American or live in the USA? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you not scroll further than the first result? Look at the Atlantic article or the NPR source. Mormonism remains a distinctly American religion, even though the majority of adherents are now outside the US. ~Awilley (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that they are a distinctly American religion with origins in America, what is being disupted is whether or not their ranking in the US alone is due for the lead. Current sources say that the large majority of followers don't live in the US and they frame the religion in its global context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The source used in the article isn't the US Census, and the best source possible for this would be scholarship--secondary sources written by experts who know how to interpret the primary sources like various censuses, surveys, polls, estimates, etc. Levivich (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

As a matter of policy the US Census Bureau doesn't include religion questions on surveys, so it is just about the worst possible source for this. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Meant US Religion Census. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The ordering by number of adherents has been noted in years prior to 2020 by other sources - for example: The Blackwell Companion to Religion in America (2010) and 2012 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches published by the NCC. This source (which is different from the official US Census - sorry for any confusion) is conducted by the ASARB, who took over conducting this data gathering and analysis from the NCC (another independent, non-government organization), and is the most recent report I could find (a previous statement had been in the article but based on 2010 numbers from the last NCC report). --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to decide whether a statement about this is lede-worthy (I tend to agree that it is not), but I question why it is important to identify the LDS Church as the fourth largest (whatever) rather than the fifth largest religious group in the US which is clearly what the source does. The parenthetical is ambiguous. The rankings they state up front are not. jps (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that neither NCC or ASARB were/are independent of their subjects in this context. NCC was not independent of their consituent churches and ASARB is not independent of their consituent religious bodies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the length here, but to add to the above, the US Religion Census relies on information provided by religious groups about themselves, which is clearly not independent in Wikipedia terms. Scholars who use an independent data source like, e.g., the General Social Survey tend to find discrepancies between survey data and what the church reports about itself. Though of course part of that is due to the US Religion Census' focus on "adherents" (engaged congregational participants, including kids) rather than individual self-identification by adults, which is a data collection decision that bends the data toward a) favorable comparisons with other religious groups rather than less favorable comparisons to the national population as a whole, and b) more favorable treatment of congregationally-focused religious organizations with lots of kids. This tilt makes the LDS Church look especially healthy in the US Religion Census (4% of adherents!), while from other sources you might get the impression that it is actually a minor religious group on the decline in the US. Which is also a reason that someone who is promoting the LDS Church might prefer to use results from the US Religion Census rather than, say, the GSS or, in the olden times, ARIS. I think leaving the ranking out entirely is best, and any numbers that are self-reported by the church should be identified as self-reported in our article. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems like there is pretty good consensus for taking out this accounting from the lede.

I think it important that people can learn from the article that the LDS Church membership is large -- larger than many of the churches which have older provenance and higher profiles in the US. I am not sure that rankings as such add all that much understanding especially when there are so many ways to count and no real strong agreement on the best way to do it even among the experts.

jps (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree. The church is an interesting success story in some ways, and our article should reflect that. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with that. Interestingly enough we don't currently include their most exceptionally successful aspect, their insitutional wealth, in the lead. Perhaps we should? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to that being somewhere in the first few paragraphs. Unfortunately the church's wealth is another area where there has been a discrepancy between what the church reports about itself and what others find, though in a different direction than the membership number. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of other sources. Or excluding this commentary altogether. jps (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Short description

Jgstokes mentioned that I can't "restore my preferred wording until there is consensus support to do so." But there was never a consensus about the short description, ජපස also modified the description without consensus. Anyways I understand that the short description should be distinguished from other articles. But "Largest Mormon church" is not neutral, because relevant "Mormon" churches are only two, and both reject that identificaiton. Then what about: "Largest church in the restorationist Latter Day Saint movement". Furawi (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

"Neutral" does not mean "acceptable due to the manual of style of the church". WP:NPOV is not decided by the LDS Church. Your proposed alternative is not acceptable for a short description. jps (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible, without editorial bias..." Use Mormonism in the short description is taking a side, a bias, which is be against of the Church. Do you think that "Largest church in the restorationist Latter Day Saint movement" is the short description that the "LDS Church" wants? Furawi (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight: Wikipedia terminology must be properly understood. We have The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is the largest denomination in the Latter Day Saint movement (the movement encompasses all denominations tracing their origin back to Joseph Smith). And Mormonism refers to the shared beliefs of all sects tracing their origins back to Joseph Smith. So the wording as ict now stands is perfectly acceptable, in view of Wikipedia's definition of the relevant terminology. We don't go by what the Church says or prefers. We go by separate manuals of style. See WP:MORMON and MOS:LDS for details. If you don't like the way those definitions are applied in articles about the Church, then my suggestion would be for you to participate in the ongoing discussions about changes to the MOS or to articles about the Church. Until such changes are implemented, the three general definitions I noted will stand and be appropriately used here. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 21:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Some people wouldn't know that "Mormonism" is the shared beliefs of the denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement, some people think that "Mormonism" is just The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The current short description is still not acceptable, WP:NPOV (no bias) seems a more important policy than WP:MORMON or MOS:LDS, I'm saying it again, do you think that "Largest church in the restorationist Latter Day Saint movement" is the short description that the Church wants? No. Furawi (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Even taking all that as read... Why would we include restorationist in the short description? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Because it's an important and distinguish characteristic of this article. Because people who follow any Latter Day Saint church don't think they are in a "new religion" but Christians, restorationism (or Christitan primitivism) is religious perspective about Christianity. Because if it would be "Largest church in the Latter Day Saint movement" would be vague and wouldn't help the reader. Furawi (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're asserting that its vague what other groups could that descriptor apply to? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Furawi: what other groups. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, what does this have to do with this? But answering it, maybe the Baptists, Seventh-day Adventist Church, Jehova's Witness. Furawi (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand... You said "Because if it would be "Largest church in the Latter Day Saint movement" would be vague" and vague means that the description applies to multiple things (and is therefore not specific)... So to what other groups does the descriptor "Largest church in the Latter Day Saint movement" apply? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I meant "vague" in the sense that it's incomplete, imprecise, that could be better, not that. Furawi (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It would appear to have the exact same precision (one result) as "Largest church in the restorationist Latter Day Saint movement" (therefore being as complete) and more concise with the exact same meaning is better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No because that is not the best short description to define the Church in WP, because of all I said, it's important that the short description is distinct, but it's more important that it's clear; the current short description it's not clear. But if for you it's the "exact same meaning" then why you oppose to that? Also if you want other reason about why its important to add "restorationist", just look the order of the template, it appears first "Classification: Restorationist" than "Orientation: Latter Day Saint movement". Furawi (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If they both refer to exactly one group then they have the exact same level of clarity. You can't get clearer than perfectly clear. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean we have to align our wording with that which is desired by members of this church. We don't have to go out of our way to do the opposite of what they want, but if the best and most neutral wording is at odds with the desires of the adherents, that's not cause to say that there is a violation of neutrality. jps (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, again "Largest church in the restorationist Latter Day Saint movement" is not the short description that the Church wants. It's not the best and most neutral short description. It's confusing too because there isn't many churches in the "Latter Day" Saint movement, and because some people think "Mormonism" is just "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". "Largest church in the restorationist Latter Day Saint movement" is fine. Furawi (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Then what about: "Largest church in the restorationist movement". Furawi (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

LDS are restorationist, but they are not part of the Restoration Movement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Then: "Largest church in the restorationist classification". "Tradition", "perspective" could also work. Furawi (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

And the exteme obscurity of restorationism vs the rather well known latter day saints movement makes this better because...? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of a short description on English Wikipedia is not "to be distinguished from other articles". That's a misunderstanding. The purpose is to briefly describe the scope of the page, so that readers who are searching and find multiple similarly-named articles can make sure they click/tap on the one they're looking for even in the absence of other disambiguation information. E.g. if someone is looking for Kanako Nishi, the short description helps them figure out that the article with that name is about the national champion cyclist, not the award-winning author. "Largest church in Mormonism" does that, because any search that pulls up this article will pull up similarly-named articles that are not about the largest church in Mormonism, and the "Largest church in Mormonism" short description will identify this article specifically in that search context. In other words, short descriptions are not about uniquely defining the topic or thoroughly summarizing its contents. They exist to solve one particular kind of problem, narrowly. This is all explained in Wikipedia:Short description, which I encourage everyone to read. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok. "Largest church in the restorationist classification" also does that. Furawi (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Serious question: when everyone else in the conversation is telling you no, and for different reasons related to your misunderstandings of how English Wikipedia works, which outcome do you think is more likely for you if you keep repeating yourself in the face of such clear opposition: 1) suddenly everyone changes their mind, or 2) you catch a block for disruptive editing? Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What everyone? There's like 4 persons in this discussion, if you feel like an expert in the English Wikipedia, answer why my new (thus not disruptive editing) short description is wrong: "Largest church in the restorationist classification". Furawi (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that's easy. It's wrong because everyone else in this conversation disagrees with you, and you're continuing to demand that people satisfy you regardless. That's textbook disruptive editing, which you can confirm by clicking on the link in my previous comment and going to the section titled "Failure or refusal to 'get the point'". Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

"Easy" but you answered it wrong, at this moment only you have disagreed with the short description "Largest church in the restorationist classification". The user Horse Eye's Back disagreed with "Largest church in the restorationist movement", so I changed it to "Largest church in the restorationist classification", but Horse Eye's Back haven't replied. ජපස and Jgstokes disagreed with "Largest church in the restorationist Latter Day Saint movement", as I do now too. I'm waiting for useful comments about the new short description, not comments about why you think I'll get blocked. Furawi (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that you'll see this as a useful comment, but since you asked: from your participation in this area it appears to me as though your main purpose is to eliminate the term "Mormonism" (looking at your user talk page, others have noticed this tendency as well). Since, as others have patiently explained, that word is not actually a problem on English Wikipedia, your efforts to substitute other words ("restorationist" etc) do not solve any actually existing problems, and will pretty much always come across as POV-pushing, even if you keep changing one or two words around them to make your latest effort seem fresh. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

And it's not useful. My purposes don't really matter; if WP follows their principles, their articles will stay neutral, which is what I'm trying to do. Anyways you mentioned others have noticed a tendency but it was just one. I already explained why use "Mormonism", at least in this case, it's not the best for WP. The editors thought the former short description was not the best neither, and they changed it to the present short description, thus there was an "existent problem", but I don't think that's the best short description, that's something I'm trying to change. I don't think I'm doing POV-pushing, anyways I could say that they're doing POV-pushing with their comments like "the Church is not Christian", I don't think "Largest church in the restorationist classification" it's the short description that the Church wants. Why you can go to my discussion and analyze for some reason what are my intentions but you can't tell me why "Largest church in the restorationist classification" it's wrong. Furawi (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You need to understand that your interpretation of what you think are WP's principles are not correct. You seem to be arguing that "neutrality" is rightly an exercise in radical accommodationism. jps (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

My previous comment was mainly my answer about that my intentions are to remove the "Mormon", "Mormonism" words. Now I'm talking about the new short description I'm proposing: "Largest church in the restorationist classification", can you tell me what's wrong with that short description? Furawi (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This has already been explained to you. jps (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

And your previous comment makes it seem like you are tacitly confirming that to be your intention, hence jps pointing out that you seem to be mistaking neutality for what you think is right even when what you think its right is miles from WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Corporation sole citation

This is regarding this edit by @Bahooka::

Per the cited source, page 2: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Utah corporation sole, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, which was organized and operated to carry out the purposes of the faith known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church has over 16 million members in more than 30,000 congregations across 160 countries. As referenced in this Order, “senior leadership of the Church” consists of the Church’s First Presidency and Presiding Bishopric.[4]

For clarity, a corporation sole, by definition, only has a single position held by a sole individual. Grayfell (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem with the corporation sole, and the citation remains for that. However, I could not find anything in the reference that states "the Presiding Bishop is the sole officer." If it needs to be a single person, the reference needs to identify who that is (president of the church, presiding bishop, etc.) This reference does not do that. Bahooka (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)