Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Correct name of Church

Perhaps this has been debated elsewhere, but shouldn't we strive to use the correct name[s] for the Church where possible?

From http://www.lds.org/newsroom/page/0,15606,3899-1---15-168,00.html, we have the Church's preferences clearly stated. I have no problem with these preferences, given that we universally allow entities (both individual, corporate, and religious) to choose their own names.

Specifically, I'd like to reduce the amount of times we see "LDS Church" in favor of the correct title. And I'd like to go ahead and use "Mormonism" when this makes sense ("the Mormons" refers to a people, not the body of doctrine, history, and culture). But I'm not trying to rock the boat. Is there any consensus on this isssue? LennyG

This was debated quite a bit and archived I believe, but I haven't read it. Regardless, I feel significantly dogmatic about this subject (even if I don't apply it consistently sometimes). I'm partial to the "LDS Church" usage, just because it is more specific than "the Church" and it is nicely shorter than the full name or "the Church of Jesus Christ". However, I absolutely agree that the Church's style guide should be strictly followed: All references in wiki to "Mormon Church", "LDS Church" or "the Church of the Latter-day Saints" or the like should be changed to one of the acceptable formats. One of us interested folks should start going through the articles to make sure that they are all consistent and make changes where needed. This should include a change to "Latter-day Saints" where "Mormons" is used unless it is clear that the reference is intended to be used in a broader sense. There are also articles (many mine, I'm sure) where the a reference to the Church is followed by a parenthetical like "(LDS/Mormon)". Use of parentheticals like that is a poor practice too. B

I don't see why we have to pay attention solely to what the Church wants. Suppose the legal name of some bloke is Jeremiah Smith but he started a cult and now wishes to be solely known as The almighty ruler of the universe in bold italics. Calling him as he calls himself is a violation of NPOV for the billions of people who don't see Jeremiah as the almighty ruler of the universe. Calling him Jeremiah Smith is a violation of NPOV for him and a handful of his followers, and is clearly the lesser evil.

Similarly, the LDS Church might wish to be referred to as "the Church of Jesus Christ", but this is violating NPOV for the billions of people who consider that the LDS church is not the church at all, but rather one of a number of such churches.

I'm not saying that the wishes of the LDS Church should be ignored, but they should be weighed against other concerns, such as:

• Brevity (particularly in titles)
• The principle of least astonishment
• NPOV and offence-avoidance

Martin

I agree that we don't have to do "what the Church wants," and I didn't mean to imply that we should bow to their requests at any time. BUT, I do think that their request is reasonable. The difference between this and the "almighty ruler of the universe" example is that one appears reasonable while the other does not. Let me give another example, that of the "Houston Oilers" NFL franchise, which moved recently to Tennessee and became the "Titans." Do we continue to call them the "Oilers," even though that's all they were ever known as for a long span of years? The answer is "no," even though there might be a few diehard Oilers fans out there who would disagree.

And the Church has an even stronger position in many ways: it was named "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" on its founding day in 1830. The various nicknames have an important historical context and should not be erased or never mentioned; all I'm saying is that whenever possible, we should use the correct name. Perhaps from some perspective the shortened "The Church of Jesus Christ" pushes the envelope of NPOV, but there are good arguments on both sides of that point.

I do agree that the term we use to describe should be weighed against the three concerns you mention. LennyG

Hi, Martin. Thanks for joining in. Neither of us is suggesting that the Church's preferences are or should be the sole determining factor here. Since you probably know that I'm committed to abiding by wiki policies and making wiki a non-partisan endeavor, then you probably know that when I say that I'm dogmatic about the naming convention it is because in light of other factors that should be considered, I feel that the Church's preferences are consistent with wiki policies and should be respected. As your example points out, avoiding offence can cut many ways. "Mormon" began as a pejorative term by detractors of the Church. It is offensive to refer to the Church as "Mormon Church" or "LDS Church"; the Church does not purport to be the church of the disciples of Mormon or the church that is dictated by the Latter-day Saints. The primary issue here is in title brevity and brevity in articles once that the full name is stated and the Church is referred to repeatedly afterward. These points should be relatively uncontroversial:

• the first reference to the Church in any article should be by its full, formal, conventional and legal name
• usage of the shorthand version in articles and titles should be consistent throughout wiki
• usage of "the Church" is ok in wiki
• "Mormon Church" should not be used at all
• avoidance of offence and courtesy take priority over brevity (even in titles)

Here is what I propose (which is consistent with wiki policy and the Church's preference):

• do not use "LDS", "LDS Church", "Mormon Church" or "the Church of Jesus Christ"
• use the Church's full name only in articles and only as the first reference or when necessary to clearly refer to the Church
• articles that are titled like "Priesthood (LDS)" should be titled like "Priesthood (Mormonism)"
• "Latter-day Saints" should be used over "Mormons"

If no one disagrees, let's see if we can get by for now using these guidelines going forward and we'll revisit the issue if it doesn't seem to be working.

BTW, Lenny, your Oilers example led me to reflect on the relationship between Texans and pro football. Living near but not being from Dallas, it is irritating that natives love to call the Dallas Cowboys "America's Team" (Grrrr)...especially now-a-days when they can hardly win a game. B

---

Compromise

I think this is an excellent compromise. Use the official full name upon first reference, a simple "the Church" instead of "the Church of Jesus Christ" thereafter where it is unambiguous (perhaps considering this abbreviation or the full name when needed to disambiguate), and use "Mormonism" as a descriptor for the rest. LennyG

The only problem I see with this compromise is that "the Church" is used in many other contexts to refer to either the aggregation of everyone who calls themself a Christian, some other particular "branch" of Christianity, or to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church referred to in the Nicene Creed. Perhaps to avoid this confusion, the first reference could include the full name followed by "(hereinafter referred to simply as the Church)", and leaving the references as they are. Would everyone find this clarifying addition to the beginning acceptable? As an aside, why would referring to them as the LDS Church for brevity be objectionable, as it appears to be a simple contraction of the full name? Wesley 15:27 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Name of the article

I don't think it's a good idea to use a disputed name for a religion, in an article about a religion. Worse, this is an article examining whether or not the religion is bona fide and/or whether it fits into the category it claims for itself.

Even Mormons and Christianity would be a better title than "Mormonism as a Christian religion".

But I see that Anome moved it to The LDS Church and Christianity and then to Christianity and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which is actually what I had in mind in the first place but hesitated to propose! --Uncle Ed

---

Church stole from SF

Removed from the article:

I don't know if this is true, but I remember being told that the concept of everyone becoming the god of another planet when they die is based of a Science Fiction book. And that the Mormon church was successfully sued for breach of copyright

Sentences in encyclopedias problably should not start "I don't know if this is true, but I remember being told..." -- The Anome 16:20, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides, that concept has been part of LDS theology since before there was science fiction. Additionally, you can't copyright an idea. —Frecklefoot 16:24, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Archiving

I'm going to Archive a good chunk of this discussion and then repaste ongoing, unresolved or otherwise relevant material back into the talk page. Hold on to your hats for a moment. B 22:53, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

---

When Did Mormons Leave Christianity?

Hmm, can't see the numbers while editing. :-( Anyway, in my personal opinion, any of the following would exclude Mormons from most other Christians: believing all the creeds of the churches were corrupted; ignoring the minister friend's advice that the vision was not possible (no comment on whether it was of the devil, I certainly don't know!); allegations of receiving priesthood authority from angels; publishing the Book of Mormon AND placing it on par with the Bible; organizing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Church of Christ is a different denomination that also began in the 1800s); teaching and practicing polygamy; teaching that God was once a man (not exactly Arianism, but committing the same error that God is a created being). After all that, the closed temple ceremonies almost don't matter. That first one, believing that all the creeds of the churches were corrupted, and that Presbyterianism was not true, are where Joseph Smith parts company with Christianity, effectively cutting himself off. It's no less drastic than the changes Mohammad made when he founded Islam. Wesley 18:26, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's all a matter of opinion (please! I am not trying start another debate). This is what this whole article is about. Of course I think it all comes down to what your defintion of a "Christian" is, and I think most other denominations formulate definitions just to exclude Mormons. But we've already covered that.

Just one thing though: "...that Presbyterianism was not true, are where Joseph Smith parts company with Christianity." In order to be a Christian you have to beleive in Presbyterianism? Wouldn't that make you a Presbyterian? Does that mean only Presbyterianism is true? —Frecklefoot 20:44, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I can see how that statement could be read that way. The question was when Joseph Smith Jr. left Christianity. I'm assuming that Smith's parents and family were Presbyterian, which at least is a denomination that can be historically documented back to the Reformation, which obviously came from the Roman Catholic Church, which goes back to the earliest Christians. When Smith denied Presbyterianism without joining any other branch of historic Christianity, he left the Christian church of history to found a brand new group. Had he decided that Presbyterians were wrong but instead joined, say, the Lutherans or Anglicans, he would at least still be in a church that had some historical ties; while they have rejected some earlier teachings of the church, they haven't boldly reject all the historic Christian creeds. For the record, I personally am not and never have been a Presbyterian. As for making up definitions just to exclude Mormons, the creeds we're talking about were around long before Mormonism, though some were designed to exclude the Gnostics that Mormons in some ways resemble. Wesley 14:53, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My Presbyterian friend says you don't HAVE to be Presbyterian to get to heaven, but-Why take chances? Heh, heh... Pollinator 00:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mormon Know it all

Hey there readers!! Um first of all I feel that if you're not a Latter-Day Saint then you shouldn't really be talking about whether this religion is false or not, because I am a Latter- Day Saint and I know everything there is to know about "The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". People may have opinions about some religions, especially when it comes to "The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" people always think of us mormons as "the ADULTERERS"......... and I feel that those ignorant people have the nerve to speak what they "think" of the mormon religion when they know NOTHING of our teachings......

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5