Contents 1 Church preferences 2 Revised guidelines 3 First reference should use full name of church 4 Use of "The Church" 5 Capitalisation of "the" 6 Naming conventions 7 "Mormonisms" 8 Anachronisms 9 "one true Church"

[edit] Church preferences

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

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

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

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

Anglicanism - uses "adherents"

Bahá'í Faith - uses "adherents"

Buddhists - uses "adherents"

Chinese folk religion - uses "adherents"

Christianity - uses "adherents"

Calvinists - uses "adherents"

Eastern Orthodox Church - uses "adherents"

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

Judaism - uses "adherents"

Pentecostalism - uses "adherents"

Rastafari - uses "adherents"

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

Shinto - uses "adherents"

Spiritism - uses "adherents"

Unitarian Universalism - uses "followers"

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

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

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

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

CyberAnth 07:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Revised guidelines

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

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

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

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

[edit] First reference should use full name of church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Use of "The Church"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.97 - “Down” style

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

8.106 - Church

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

church and state

the early church

the church in the twenty-first century

the church fathers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for writing--

Staff

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

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

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

I went to the Catholic article and read the following:

Many Catholics dislike the term "Roman Catholic", because some use it to posit a distinction between "the Roman Catholic Church" and "the catholic Church".^[1] When in dialogue with other Christians, the Church uses either "Catholic Church" or, if this term is not acceptable to the partner in dialogue, "Roman Catholic Church".^[2] Except in such dialogue, the Church most commonly refers to itself as "the Church", and uses "the Catholic Church" far less commonly, and "the Roman Catholic Church" extremely rarely.^[3] The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an example: in it, "the Church" appears many hundreds of times, compared to 24 uses of "the Catholic Church" (including the title of the book) and no use of the term "the Roman Catholic Church".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the reason for the 'C' for the Catholic Church is basically because it encompasses more than just one building, but the universal group of Catholics. Correct? I feel that for both the LDS Church and others like The Church of Jesus Christ – it is the same argument. For The Church of Jesus Christ – the (Capital C) Church refers to the entire group of members within The Church of Jesus Christ. I cannot speak for the LDS and other Latter Day Saint movement groups. It is not restricted to a place or person. The ‘C’ is meant to represent the entire organization in a shortened form of the real name. Like LDS Church for Latter-day Saints, or Church for the Catholic Church, it is the same argument for The Church of Jesus Christ.

I do not feel that others would read a statement like, ‘As a whole, the Church…’ and say wow this has a biased POV for one organization over another. I feel the real issue would be to capitalize the T in ‘The Church.’ I see no issues with ‘the Church as long as Wiki keeps it unified across the board. Jcg5029 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Capitalisation of "the"

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

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

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

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

[edit] Naming conventions

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

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

[edit] "Mormonisms"

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Anachronisms

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

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

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

[edit] "one true Church"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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