Talk:Mormon (word)/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

very weak piece here

My overall impression is that we have a very weak piece here. As noted in part below, none of the particularities or core beliefs of Mormons are treated much or at all, not how they differ from other Christians/Christians, why the Catholic Church has a beef with them and won't regard them as a fellow Christian religion, nor polygamy, clothing, their view of the afterlife (which I heard somehow involves some river in the West somewhere), husbands' role in judging their wives and families, role in politics, ascetism, highly dominant role in Utah society, etc. I realize this may be due (or partly due) to vandalism, but to me, it has to be said. I am modestly interested in the subject, but I don't have much knowledge personally to go writing about it, unfortunately. Mare Nostrum 12:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Part of this is the fact that "Mormon" and "Latter-day Saint" are not directly synonymous, and this article tries to keep that in mind. For more information on the subjects you're interested in, I recommend you check out the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article. The Jade Knight 18:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This page describes a nickname for members of a specific denomination. As such, discussion about the denomination itself belong elsewhere, not on this nickname page.

In fact, a strong argument could be made that everything beyond the first paragraph of this page belongs elsewhere. AuntieMormom 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Mormons do not practise Polygamy. There is nothing about a river in the west in their views of the afterlife. Husbands do not judge their families in a religious sense, but you are right that people should look at the specific information they are looking for. (Cheaust, 8-19-06)

I think the important thing to bear in mind is that this is an encyclopedia entry and that certain subjects have absolutely no place in such. Facts are what we're interested in, if it's a fact that there's some discussion/disagreement on issues such as standing of the LDS church as Christians, that can be mentioned. However, there are some things that are not feasible to have because of the strong feelings on both sides of controversial issues. I think that a more important issue than what so and so thinks about so and so (the catholics view on whether Mormons are Christian or whether Baptists or anyone else thinks they are)is qualifying what a "Christian" really is. Or better yet, showing the difference in qualification between the groups. In the eyes of every member of the LDS church Mormons are Christians and it's laughable to say they're not. That's because to Mormons the word "christian" means "someone who believes in Christ." However, other Christians tend to create a set of standards that qualify the term "Christians" and tend to exclude mormons based on real or imagined differences. The argument is really quite ridiculous and trivial, because we're assuming the right to define a self definition used by different people. Yes it's important to qualify who we recognize as Christian, but to do anything farther than mention both sides of the argument would not be fitting in an encyclopedia setting.Gentry Davies 04:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright nazi

It is against wikipedia policy to refer to copyrighted material that is published illegally. Besides, the material referrenced would be more suited to other articles. B

Secret underwear

I'd like to see some information about the 'garments' and 'testamony', and perhaps some other beliefs which distinguish the Church of Latter-Day Saints from other religions which hold to the Old Testament (and additional writings). --Zandperl

The reason there is no informations about the garments is because of their sacred nature. I plan to; however, add as much as I can about them on the LDS page, as well as testimony.

Church name

Shouldn't the word 'church' appear in lowercase when not appearing as part of the church's name? If this were an article about another institution, say, Utah State University, you would not capitalize the word 'university' when referring to it in a sentence such as "The university was founded as an agricultural college..." (even though 'university' also appears in the school's name).

I agree. It seems a little weird Ebb

Usage of terms

Restoration Movement

The churches of the Stone-Campbell Movement are not normally referred to as "Restoration Churches", but sometimes collectively as the "Restoration Movement". --Texastwister

The RLDS/Restoration Branches, when put together with closely-related church members, such as the Restoration Seventy, who are not members of any one branch, also call themselves the "Restoration Movement". --NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 17:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mormonite

I changed the Mormonite paragraph's saying these words were "commonly used" to just they were "used," since the Oxford English Dictionary only gives one historical example for each of those words. mrcolj Mrcolj

Mormon

I don't think that many Latter-day Saints consider the term Mormon to be derogatory. It is after all, the name of an important prophet and is still part of the official name of the Church's most prestigious choir. For many years the nick-name "Mormon" was embraced and was even featured in television advertisements for the church. However, in recent years the Church has officially discouraged use of the term Mormon to refer to the Church and its members in favor of the official name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the church and Latter-day Saints for the members.

This move away from the term "Mormon", seems to stem more from a desire to show deference to the official name, which Latter-day Saints believe to be divinely inspired rather than a dislike for the term "Mormon".

We've been discussing this on talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I've added this - "The Quakers, Mennonites, and Amish have embraced the nicknames or pejorative terms that were applied to them, while the Latter-day Saints reject the nickname 'Mormon'." - to the section on Quakers and Mormons. That explanation seems to need to be made to make the section make sense (at least to me). Besides, who has ever actually been confused that the Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, and Mormons constitute the same group? If this (about the nickname) is not technically correct, perhaps something needs to be done to the whole section. If the section is not about the contrast of those groups embracing or not embracing nicknames, what is it about? - Rlvaughn 17:07, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think this should be changed. Of all these groups the only ones that are actually commonly confused are the Amish and the Mennonites, which are loosely related. I suppose some people unfamiliar with these groups confuse Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses due to their similar outreach methods and their marginal status in the mainstream Christian community, but I think most people are well aware that they are distinct. NTK 06:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a "Mormon", and I have often been asked why I don't use electricity. Latter-Day Saints are mistaken for Amish, Menonites, and Jehovah's Witnesses more often than you would think. Bisric 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions that the LDS church doesn't like the term Mormon being used to refer collectively to all groups that follow the Book of Mormon, but it doesn't say what term they prefer to be used instead. For example, do they like Restoration Churches or Restoration Movement, or do they just object to anyone referring to the churches collectively under any name? If someone knows the answer, please add it to the article. --Zundark 21:07, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please visit Naming conventions (Mormonism) for more details Visorstuff 21:39, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Zundark, if I understand you correctly, your question is not about what members should be called, but what the Church thinks non-member-Mormons should be called if not Mormons. AFAIK no Church authority has suggested an alternate term, and I don't think Church authorities would even like the term "Mormon-splinter-group" applied to them. Some Latter-day Saints might call them apostates. B 22:29, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a religious tract. Mormon rules on what to call Mormons do not apply to a secular work such as this. Please keep this in mind and do not attempt to turn any article referring to Mormonism into an opportunity for proselytisation. It's in your best interests, as well as those of Wikipedia, because too much spin will very likely prompt someone to balance it out in a way the Mormon Church just might not like. --66.199.69.117

66.199.69.117, your accusations, implied and expressed, are unfounded, your reponse mostly irrelevant, and your grasp of wikipedia and its policies and your ignorance and bigotry are unimpressive. B 16:16, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

I don't agree, B. Its called a NPOV. Its what Wikipedia stands for. Hello, the 2nd of the 5 pillars? And, P.S. Its not very nice to call someone a bigot. Ebb 04:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like people to stick to the policy of a NPOV rather than attempting to impose LDS guidelines as Wikipedia guidelines. I would appreciate it if anyone dealing in this subject matter would comply with this simple request.

Additionally, I would appreciate your not engaging in personal attacks. However, at least it is patently obvious (and should be to any reader) that you have nothing to base them on.

Finally, it should be noted that I have not implied anything. I have simply stated a point of view in accordance with standard Wikipedia policy. You are free to infer what you choose, though I recommend not inferring negative concepts as it has been shown to lead to undue stress in many individuals.

If one were to note the inherent similarity of the concepts of 'Bigot' and 'Nazi', one might also then note that 'B' has invoked Godwin's law in a euphemistic fashion.

LDS folk don't really mind being called Mormons. They could be called much worse. The problem is that many people think they worship Mormon and use this as evidence that they aren't Christian. Church leaders have moved towards using the full name of the church to make sure everybody knows that they are Christians.

Latter Day Saint vs. Latter-day Saint

Twice in a few weeks we have had to deal with attempts to "correct" Latter Day Saint to Latter-day Saint. If it is going to be that hard to make stick, maybe we need to put our heads together and come up with a different solution or a way to head off the problem. Any ideas? Tom (hawstom) 05:06, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tom - I am not sure why you would want to use the "Latter Day" version over the accurate "Latter-day" version. What source are you basing that on? The name originates from a revelation published by Joseph Smith, recorded in the book Doctrine and Covenants (section 115, verse 4) "For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." The correct spelling is "Latter-day". This is the spelling used by the LDS Church today in any format other than all caps, where the standard is then "LATTER-DAY". I am going to correct it one more time in the article.

Speaking for what I think Tom is getting at: "Latter Day Saint" and "Latter-day Saint" are emphatically not the same thing (check out the Wikipedia entries). "Latter-day Saints" are the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "Latter Day Saints" are any of the members of the various Latter Day Saint churches (including the Community of Christ, Church of Christ (Temple Lot), etc. Does this help clarify why "Latter Day Saint" should be used, and not "Latter-day Saint"? The Jade Knight 05:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Just glancing through this entry, the entire article seems to be about naming conventions. These are important, sure, but how about something a little more informative? This could be reduced to a very small section. The only real issue is that a church follows the person it's named after (see 3 Ne. 27:8), and since Mormons worship Jesus, and not Mormon, their name should reflect that. I am Mormon myself, and I don't know of anyone who is offended by 'Mormon' being used to describe them. Indeed, the only dubious usage of 'Mormon' is the phrase 'Mormon Church,' since if you call me 'Mormon' you imply that I follow that prophet, and since that doesn't mean I worship him, that's fine.

Also, those smaller denominations, although they probably don't much mind being called Mormon, would probably prefer we not use 'Mormon' to describe them, except in passing, as that word has come to refer almost exclusively to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The article is not about the Church, but rather the term "Mormon." See articles about the Church if you want information about the church. -Visorstuff 22:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am not getting this idea at all. The usage "Latter Day Saint" is not proper English grammar. See http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/hyphens1.html or the Chicago Manual of Style (better yet). You hyphenate multiple adjectives to clarify the meaning. Engish grammar dictates that it is "latter-day saint," just as much as it would whether that person is from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Reorganized Church (now renamed) or any other branch of the original church. To argue that "latter day saint" refers to a person from a generic church is incomprehensible to me. So can we please correct the English and get it right? -- Tortdog

Except the fact remains that many of the splits-offs from the main church used "Latter Day Saint" rather than "Latter-day Saint" (e.g. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)). --Kmsiever 17:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That'd be an issue you'd need to take up with the LDS Church and Mormon academia as a whole. While you may be correct about it being improprer grammar, article titles aren't necessarily going to be based on linguistic rules. Hence names such as iPod (incorrect capitalization), ThinkPad (lack of punctuation), and so on. Titles are created according to what the subject in question is referred to as, and the debate here is on what groups are falls under the two different terms... not whether their grammar is correct. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 20:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That argument on proper names (ThinkPad, iPod) makes sense when it's a proper name, but that's not the use. "Latter day saint" is being used to in the generic, and NOT as the proper name of any one group. Therefore, the general rules of English do apply, and Wikipedia looks less than wise in violating a very basic rule of English grammar. If you dispute this view, look at the conversation that attempts to draw a distinction between the two groups.

I just finished a thorough review of all ONLINE sources on hyphenation of the name, and the ONLY discourse on whether or not to exclude the hyphen comes from Wiki sites. In the discussions, rules of grammar are ignored. It's as though someone thought that there must be a conflict on Wiki and created it as an issue. As a consequence, Wiki is the only pseudo-authoritative source that is abusing grammar and publishing "Latter Day Saint." The entire argument is some view (from Wiki editors...not sure how many as certainly a few of us strongly disagree) that grammar doesn't apply and this proper-name thing trumps. Well, it's not a registered public name. It's not recognized in any authoritative source, and it violates rules of grammar. So whom may I call to discuss this issue who can also reverse the Wiki style that conflicts with the established rules, e.g. Chicago Manual of Style? (It really does hurt my eyes to see grammar so ignored.)User:Tortdog May 16, 2006

There is still no answer to the grammar. Latter day saints is incorrect grammar. It causes confusion. Are you referring to saints of the latter days, or talking about day-saints of the latter group as opposed to an earlier group? Is it a fast sailing ship or a fast-sailing ship? A fast-sailing ship is a ship that has fast navigation, while a fast sailing-ship is a sailing ship that is running fast. Please, can we get Wikipedia to the rest of the world? Or do I just change these entries if no one can argue against the grammar.--tortdog 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Kids-R-Us isn't correct grammar, but it is the name of a company. If the name of the LDS church is Latter-day Saints, using that term for a different religious group isn't correct either. I wasn't part of the discussion for the current naming convention, so I don't know what alternatives were discussed. If it isn't correct to use "Latter Day Saints" for the collection of religions that aren't part of the LDS church, then what should it be? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

LDS Church style guidelines

Removed from the article (wikipedia is not a usage quide):

The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This full name was given by revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1838.

While the term "Mormon Church" has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use.

When writing about the Church, please follow these guidelines:

In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Please avoid the use of "Mormon Church," "LDS Church" or "the Church of the Latter-day Saints."

When a shortened reference is needed, the terms "the Church" or "the Church of Jesus Christ" are encouraged.

When referring to Church members, the term "Latter-day Saints" is preferred, though "Mormons" is acceptable.

"Mormon" is correctly used in proper names such as the Book of Mormon, Mormon Tabernacle Choir or Mormon Trail, or when used as an adjective in such expressions as "Mormon Pioneers."

The term "Mormonism" is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms "Mormons," "Mormon fundamentalist," "Mormon dissidents," etc., are incorrect. The Associated Press Style Guide notes: "The term 'Mormon' is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death."

Despite the church's preference, the term "Mormon" is also used, especially by some scholars, to refer to a follower of any one of the various groups descended from Joseph Smith; see Mormons.

If the above is rewritten some of this might be put back into the main article. --maveric149

Everybody is discussing usage and whether the LDS accept the term "Mormon" or not -- why not refer the official source, i.e., The Church (or "the Church") itself? I am sure the answer is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.170.38 (talk • contribs)

Mormon vs. Mormonism

There are so many articles, now, with the word "Mormonism" in their title (see, e.g., Restoration (Mormonism), Priesthood (Mormonism), etc.), that we have to have an actual Mormonism article that explains what Mormonism is! This usage would be in conformance with the widespread usage of the word "Mormonism" in such publications as the oft-cited Encyclopedia of Mormonism. It would also put this article in conformance with Wikipedia standards (as well as other encyclopedias), which prefer titles for religions such as Catholicism, Protestantism, and Methodism, rather than "Catholic", "Protestant", and "Methodist".COGDEN 20:58, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

... But why separate Mormon and Mormonism articles? They seem at first wink redundant, and mergeable... Alai 04:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Mormonism)Visorstuff 16:51, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK. Do Mormons trace their roots TO Smith or THROUGH Smith? Why the recent change to TO? Aren't all Christian roots traced to Christ? Hawstom 04:23, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Seems like Wikipedia shouldn't be a religious tract (as someone stated earlier) so to seems less controversial, as well as using a small word where it works just as well. KellyCoinGuy Jan 4, 2004

It should be "through" when talking about where mormon's trace their roots. If it was talking about where non-mormon's trace mormon roots, then it could be "TO", but it's not. Mormons trace through roots THROUGH Joseph Smith.

In that case, it should be said the Christians trace their roots through Jesus to' God.

Article for comparing/contrasting various Mormon sects

Ok, someone (I think Hawstom) edited out my rather admittedly long winded chat about how the various denominations of Mormonism (or restorationist whatever) view the cannonical set of scripture. While I like the first paragraph better for purposes of this article, I'd still like to see the compare and contrast between the various schisms (I think that's a politically correct term nobody would disagree with) somewhere. I just can't think of the right name for the article... Perhaps something like 'Schisms of Mormonism'??? There is a lot of interesting information that should be somewhere, even if not in the main article. Someone suggest a different name if you can think of one. KellyCoinGuy Jan 4, 2004

How about Branches of Mormonism? Q

Kelly, for what purpose? To compare/contrast just the various Mormon sects POV on scriptural cannon? A broad article comparing/contrasting the sameness/difference between the various Mormon sects would be useful. Baptist churchs have split up quite a bit into various denominations...it might be informative to see what has been done on that if anything. B 17:54, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

The first paragraph as it stands today looks pretty good, though I am still out of the loop on this LDS movement business. I am withholding judgement. Hawstom 04:21, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think that the section Mormon Denominations should be moved to the article on the Latter Day Saint movement. While some of these denominations wouldn't want to be called Mormons, nearly all would consider themselves part of the Latter Day Saint movement. Alternatively, the section could be moved to Latter Day Saint; however, a description of the various major Latter Day Saint denominations seems to more directly answer the question "what is the Latter Day Saint movement?" rather than "what is a Latter Day Saint?", because the movement is about institutions, not people. It most certainly doesn't answer the question "what is a Mormon?" COGDEN 18:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK. Hawstom 18:21, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm doing it. COGDEN 18:31, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nice work! Tom 06:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to The Associated Press Stylebook that is used to inform journalists how to refer to different groups, organizations and anything else that has to do with the news Mormon is a term used for members of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only. Groups who are not of this church are not refered to as Mormon. In news print someone who is not a member of that specific church would not be refered to as a Mormon. It may be used in popular culture, but that does not make it correct.

Temple picture

Thanks for the nice picture, but what is a temple picture doing in the Mormon article? Can this be moved to an LDS article? Hawstom 19:22, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Israelite doctrine in Mormonism

Hawstom, the Israelite doctrine in Mormonism needs to be in the Mormonism and Judaism article. Please move it. B 03:30, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Me? :o I wouldn't know where to start. Are you thinking of somebody else, or is my memory just going early? Tom (hawstom) 05:06, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You had already (re)moved the material just before I made the comment. So ignore my comment. —B|Talk 16:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Links

Please note that many of the recently-added articles will be moved to appropriate pages due to discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. -Visorstuff 18:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An anon just removed the entire Opposing Views section of External Links. I never know what to do about such actions. Tom H. 19:49, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted the page back to the previous version. If it was a legitimate change, hopefully they will explain why. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 21:41, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad approach. :-D. Tom H. 22:26, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should make a rule that the Opposing Views section can't be added without the good section from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What do you all say? I'll post a link to this proposition on the Wikiproject. :) Cookiecaper 23:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should tend toward having a little shouting match on every article about Mormonism. We need to standardize the organization of the project and have certain articles that discuss the controversial aspects and contain external links. Other articles should stick to the facts and have neither links to lds.org nor anti sites. We don't want the David Whitmer or Reformed Egyptian article, for example, to be spammed with such links. I suggest we begin on the the project page by making a list of pages that might be contenders for "root" or "core" project article, then work on developing a logical tree of articles that we can refer to to answer such questions as "Where do these links belong?" or "Where does this information belong?" If we get organized enough, we can present that logical structure in a project series box like at Islam, Jesus, and Buddhism. Tom H. 17:13, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I came back to this page today and I am a bit confused. The title is Mormon, but then all of these links are attached. It seems confusing when I suspect that the majority of readers are just looking for an answer to a simple question. Sometimes we bend over too far to accomodate agendas from individuals with an axe to grind against followers of Mormonism. I recommend a few simple links to major Mormon sites and then delete all the rest, but I may be favorably biased and could accept deleting all links in their entirety. For starters I will delete all but the official LDS site. Storm Rider 21:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Without question, delete all. By the way, great work, people. Tom Haws 05:16, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the remaining External Links. Please see WP:LDS#Requests_for_comment Tom Haws 05:19, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that opposing points of view are critical, not just for this page, but for all pages. Mormonstories 16:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Mormonstories, this article is about the term Mormon, it is not about beliefs, doctrines, etc. If there are sites that are critical of the term "Mormon", but all means cite them. All of the sites you listed are more appropirate to those articles that specifically address the beliefs of the LDS people. My objective was to delete all exterior links to sites that addressed beliefs. I think it appropriate to provide links to other articles within Wiki that address beliefs regardless of POV. Storm Rider 17:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Mormonstories - completely agree, but the "critical" points of view you cited are all related to a specific church not the larger Mormon movement. May want to re-read the article in depth. -Visorstuff 17:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the comparative religion external link?

http://www.comparative-religion.com/ Comparative Religion seems like a nice enough site. But the link has nothing to do with Mormonism. I'm inclined to view it as spam. If it goes here, I don't understand why it's in the Opposiong Views section. Any thoughts?

Let's remove - Tom - your honors? -Visorstuff 20:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

External links format

All the links in the External Links section as simple, meaning that they are not overly long and are generally readable (e.g. http://www.lds.org). The style guide says to leave these links be without formatting them. E.g.:

The entire canonical scripture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints online: http://scriptures.lds.org

This makes the links more visible and the article more useful if printed out (in which cases, the links are useless). I propose to change them to the above format. I'd just like some feedback before I make a change which might miff some users. Thoughts? —Frecklefoot 19:51, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry for messing it up. B 20:12, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

All exterior links that are not specifically related to the subject of the article will be deleted. This article is about the definition of MORMON; it is not about the LDS church or any other church. There is no doctrine to attack, support, defend, destroy, proclaim, expound, or anything else. All of those links can be added to those articles where their respective subjects are specifically addressed. We all apprecicate your interest for getting on your soap box (some of us even enjoy reading them), but please understand when it is appropriate to get a soap box and when it is not. Now that's off my chest I will attempt to be calm, again. :)

What about "See also" links to the other branches of the Latter Day Saint movement? They are referenced in the article, but they should also be added to the "See also" section. Just to be fair. Val42 05:40, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Val, that is a good comment and it may reassure those anons who keep inserting exterior links "en masse". If I understand you correctly, your recommend enlarging the SEE ALSO to include a broader range of articles witht the objective of demonstrating all the information available on WIKI. If my understanding is correct, I wholeheartedly agree. Do you want to take a first stab and then we can continue to flesh it out? Storm Rider 05:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I see your sarcasm coming through. This is an article about the term 'Mormon'. There is no doctrine or belief to dispute here, so I see your frustration with those who have been adding 'anti-' links. What I'm saying is that the "See Also" section should include links to other articles related to the term 'Mormon'. I'm additionally saying that since the largest denomination is listed there, we should list the other denominations (that are also listed in the article) or take off the largest denomination. But at least that way, the anti-'s will know where to add their links. (I've been seeing the discussion over there too, so I know that there's currently a debate about how many pro- and anti- links to include.) But I agree that this is a discussion about a topic for which internal wiki links should be made, but unless someone has done a scholarly treatment of the origin or usage of the term 'Mormon', there shouldn't be external links. Val42 13:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

It was late at nigh when I "went off"; basically frustration. I don't do well with zealots regardless of position. I need to be more patient with anon's and newbie's and their desire to edit. I still agree with you. Let's add links to those articles that would be helpful to readers and move on. Storm Rider 17:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there a chance to add the following Link?

Who wants to be a mormonaire?

It is an online quiz game that is related to the teachings of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. English language is coming soon...

Quakers

I unfortunately think the recent edits muddy the waters further rather than clarifying, since there is no connection between Mormons and Quakers. The addition of the nuance you added makes it possibly appear that otherwise the groups are the same. Would you consider reverting? Tom Haws 19:42, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Reverted contribution

This was merely a title used to identify those baptised into the church that Joseph Smith, Jr. founded, which was called the 'Church of Christ' from its organization in April 1830, until December 1834, when it was subsequently called the 'Church of Latter Day Saints'. It wasn't until December 1838 that through revelation the church was given the name it has today (See Doctrine and Covenants, section 115, verse 4). Joseph Smith, Jr., on Saturday 20 May 1843, sent a letter to the editor of the Times and Seasons with the statement that the word Mormon means, literally, 'more good' (See History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, vol. 5, p. 400).

I don't see that this adds anything other than information repeated elsewhere, a bit of POV, and a contradiction of the previous assertion that the original connotation was derogatory. Can anyone resolve this, and would anyone care to otherwise salvage from the above? Alai 22:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is much worth salvaging. The "more good" comment is historically accurate, however, but that is my 2 cents. -Visorstuff 22:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On that basis, I've moved that sentence to the Mormon (prophet) article, which seems the most natural place for it. Certainly seemed a little out of place in this article (esp. the intro). Alai 23:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fundies

Quote: Despite this perspective, the term "Mormon Fundamentalist" is widely used by Latter Day Saints (including members of the LDS church and the fundamentalists themselves) and by people outside the movement.

I realize this is somehwat anecdotal, but as a former (long-time) member of the LDS church, I've *never* heard "Mormon Fundamentalist" used. I've certainly never heard it used in reference to those that were not actually members of the LDS church. "Mormon" is explicitly reserved for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I believe that portion to be inaccurate and will remove it.

This terminology is used by the mainstream press (or at least recently was) in Arizona. Tom Haws 15:08, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite significant sources?

not enough info!

why is there no information regarding the accountability of the church? most not for profits have public information so why doesn't the LDS church publish this information? Why cant I find out tithing revenues? TIME magazined estimated the church tithing revenues @ something like net USD5 billlion/year. There is also no public information on membership on the LDS church-- why I cant find out how many members drop out each year and the number of inactive members? It would be interesting to see the REAL numbers on the LDS church as they boast there numbers in each general conference but provide little other information.

These are great questions. You may want to ask them at WP:LDS talk page and at the LDS Church article's talk page. Sorry the encyclopedia is so voluminous. Tom Haws 14:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Every few weeks we seem to get someone who has a metonymic association for the church that he or she thinks should be the metaphor for discussion of the church. Mormonism, as it is defined here, is not a polygamy movement, not a blacks-and-the-priesthood movement, not a garments church, and does not refer to anything that only applies to its subgroup The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Your definition of Mormon is not reflected in the definition this article is describing.--Mrcolj 17:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Temple garments

I'm curious as to why there is no reference to the special underwear that members of the Mormon faith wear aren't touched on here. I'm highly interested as to how the square and compass of Freemasonry appeared on them and also how the initiation degree 'naked left leg' translated across to a hole on the left knee of the undergarments. I would -love- more insight on this from someone who is actively involved or well versed in the LDS church.

Jachin 22:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Probably because both active Mormons and Freemasons consider such discussions offensive. Likewise the use of inflamatory and/or inaccurate phrases. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 18:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The subject should be covered in a circumspect manner. This is going to repeatredly surface until we cover it. How is best? Where is best? It may work to decide on a form of reference that can link in many Mormonism articles to the Temple Garment or Temple Endowment article. Tom Haws

I wasn't aware of the Temple Garment or Temple Endowment article. I'm curious as to what the link is between Freemasonry and Mormonism, I've enquired about this at the local lodge yet I've yet to recieve a solid or firm anser.

Wrp103 (Bill Pringle), there is nothing offensive about discussing how a symbol that represents Freemasonry has come to be implemented on the underwear of a religious group, and no Mason I know would have a problem with this being discussed. Also, can you please point out the inflamatory or innacurate phrasing I've committed? My post has no reason to offend, I'm merely seeking answers for a question no one seems to know much about.

Of course there is nothing offensive about talking about the special underwear mormons use. It is a fact, not a joke. Steve Young even discusses it (albiet, hesitently) during an interview207.157.121.50 07:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

Jachin 07:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since temple garments are considered sacred by Mormons, creating a headline of "Magic Underwear" is at least disrespectful, if not inflamatory. I must admit that I wasn't sure if you were a "real" user, or an anon that created a bogus account, since your user page doesn't include anything about you. I suggest you consider that just because someone hasn't answered your question, that may or may not mean they don't know the answer. It is also possible that they don't want to discuss it with you. Of course, you would have to ask someone who is both an endowed Mormon and a Freemason to hope for an answer. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 02:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bingo. I'm wear garments, but don't talk about them in public, because I believe God's told me not to. But don't take that to mean I couldn't write a book on the topic. I've have a degree in Latin, have taken Greek, my wife speaks Hebrew, her father was a Biblical Archaeology professor at Hebrew University in Jersualem--so yes, I have all kinds of opinions I could show you from the Bible and other ancient texts. But I could also show you, as you could show me, from the Bible &c. how often the Lord grants blessings or knowledge to someone and then tells him/her not to discuss them publicly, lest they be taken away.--Mrcolj 17:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Here are the articles we should consider pointing to from the "major" articles. And in the appropriate one of these articles, we can explore the concepts you mentioned. Endowment (Mormonism), Temple (Mormonism), Temple garment (Mormonism), Temple garment, Washing and anointing Tom Haws 15:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Changed title of section to at least show a little respect. nihon 23:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

We definitely need a section that at least mentions these things, calling them magic underwear is not appropriate (even though its basically correct) but we can call them "temple garments" which is what they call them. Just becuase the religion wants to censor information does not mean that it's appropriate to do so. Go look at Scientology. AdamJacobMuller 02:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I do not see a problem in presenting facts about temple garments in LDS specific articles, Mormon is a term that is applied to all churches under the umbrella of the church founded by Joseph Smith. The 2nd biggest church, The Community of Christ, do not have temple garments; it is a nonexistent concept in their church to my knowledge. It would seem better to keep this article generalized in order to meet the needs of the topic and refer them to other articles that specifically address those groups that wear temple garments.

I am curious, AdamJacob, are all people who wear crosses or other religious paraphenallia accused of wearing magical items? Many wearers of such items feel there is an added source of protection in wearing them; specifically the cross and the crucifix. Magical, from a certain perspective, would seem appropriate. However, I would think that would be offensive to most adherents of all religions that wear similar items. When the term magical is used, particularly for a religion that condemns majic, an attempt is being made to slander or belittle the religion. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Degrading a religious article, regardless of how one may view it, as "magical" is just as POV as an adherent claiming that it possesses divine qualities. Keeping it in church-specific articles would do well; even the branches that use temple garments do so differently, I believe. Tijuana Brass 04:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent Vacation to Utah

Just as a side note, I took a recent vacation to Utah on a rafting trip, visiting Arches NP, etc.

"LDS" is commonly used to refer to whether or not one is Mormon; as in "I'm not LDS" or "Oh, she's LDS, so she doesn't drink." So nowadays it's not just a Mormon guideline, but kind of a regional dialect. I leave it to experienced Wiki-ers what to make of that. I hadn't heard anyone use "LDS" as shorthand before I visited Utah.

Being LDS, I can say that we use the term regularly outside of Utah too, and so far I have lived in Canada, Michigan, Texas, California, Colorado, and Oklahoma.

I am LDS as well and have lived my entire life in Canada (specifically BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan). LDS is in very common use here. -- Kmsiever 18:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Mormons in Popular Culture

Great, NPOV, fun content! If not belong here, let's be sure to put it somewhere. However, I can see how it might belong here. After all, it is about Mormon (though we LDS know the stereotypes are really from the LDS Church). Tom Haws 16:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I removed " Another refernce is the film Orgazmo."

Let's take care to make high-quality edits.
Let's organize our contributions well.
There is not currently a list of popular literature that portrays Mormons. Orgazmo (I guess) could go in such a list, but not where it was placed.
Let's do this right by stubbing a section or finding the right article.

-Tom Haws 14:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

the reference doesnt insult the culture, and it makes them more fullcharctors then the usual moronnc people ive noticed, so why is it offensive? (regrading ograzmo) Gabrielsimon 15:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If such a list is compiled, it should also contain a mention of "A Study in Scarlet", the original Sherlock Holmes novel, in which the motive for the murder turns out to lie buried in the victims Mormon past. Donald Ian Rankin 10:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, C.S. Lewis in "Prince Caspian". The story opens talking about his parents who didn't smoke, drink, and wore funny underwear. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 14:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Gabe, this is not a place to put everything that one has heard about Mormons; specific characters, comments, etc., but rather it is a paragraph that should describe how generally Mormons are perceived in popular culture. Feel free to edit other items in the paragraph, but keep it general. For example, you could describe that Mormons are generally shown as rather naieve, overly sweet, family people who have two years supply of canned food underneath their sofa and in the their closets (this is an example, I think you get the drift). Good luck. --Storm Rider 03:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

What is the difference between the "Mormons as public figures and in popular culture" section and List of Latter-day Saints? --Kmsiever 19:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Initially, it was a few short sentences on extremely prominent Mormons and their impact/contributions to their fields. I think it's growing to be more of a list of famous Mormons, however. I wouldn't mind if it were shortened. The Jade Knight 05:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Other Prominent Figures

Jade Knight, is there some reason why you feel this article can't contain references to prominent businesspeople and politicans in addition to producers, actors, directors, and authors? DavidBailey 05:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have little against such references; you'll notice that I've added the part about authors, and I left the references to Gladys Knight and Donny Osmond. However, I feel that the purpose of the article is not to list prominent Mormons (that is what the List of Latter-day Saints is for). I do not particularly feel that businessmen or politicians need to be mentioned, though I will certainly defer if there is consensus otherwise. However, I do not think we should mention Latter-day Saints who have not warranted their own Wikipedia entry (such as Jenny Oaks Baker). The Jade Knight 07:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that this article does not need to list all Mormons, but the ones that are well-known and influencers in society ought to be part of the article. For instance, Mitt Romney was the President of the Winter Olympics of 2002, the current governor of Massachusetts, and very likely Presidential candidate. I think that qualifies him to at least be in a list of notable Mormons, don't you. The others I listed are also well-known in society. Perhaps politics and business doesn't seem as important in your sphere, but it certainly is for many others, while entertainers are far less important. In an encyclopedia article, it makes sense to include the names of those who are influencing society and are prominent enough to be well known. My inclusion of Jenny Oaks Baker was to give some variety to the list of musically-talented LDS that are listed. I was actually going to create a Wikipedia entry for her because she is well known within the professional orchestral musician circuit, after all being first violinist in the National Symphony Orchestra is no small feat, and very well known in LDS circles as a talented musician and daughter of LDS General Authority and Member of the Quorum of the Twelve, Dallin H. Oaks. DavidBailey 18:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"a" vs. "an"

An anonymous user just changed "... is a colloquial ..." to "... is an colloquial ..." in the first paragraph. This seems incorrect to me. This may be some correct usage of which I am not aware. Can someone confirm or deny this? Meanwhile, I'm going to change it back. Val42 04:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Article is lacking serious mention of Mormon polygyny

This article, as well as the Wikipedia article for "Latter Day Saint" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_Day_Saint) are lacking basic information concerning the infamous history of polygyny/polygamy within the group. It is possible that the article's authors omitted much of this information because it no longer agrees with the church's beliefs. To emphasize the importance of polygyny in the early church, consider that Mormon founder Joseph Smith was martyred for this belief, as well as leader Brigham Young declaring that: "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." The practice of polygyny was such a core value for the church that change did not happen until the US federal government threatened to repossess the church's land.

Although the church no longer tolerates the activity, polygyny is commonly a main association that non-Mormons have with the LDS Church. A Google search for "Mormon Polygamy" results in over 250,000 hits. A non-secular basic encyclopedia article about the Mormon Church needs to include more factual historical information regarding polygyny for this church.

More information can be found here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_poly.htm 216.222.31.203 08:45, October 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your inquiry. That is a good point, but irrelevant for this article. Such an edit would be appropriate for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and it is actually in the intro summary of that article) or the hyphenated Latter-day Saint, but not Mormon or (unhyphenated) Latter Day Saint as those encorporate a much broader group called the Latter Day Saint movement most of which did not accept Smith's polygamy teachings even at the time. The entire Latter Day Saint movement consists of about 20 million adherents, 12.5 million of which belong to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the others to different Latter Day Saint or Mormon sects. There are dozens if not hundreds of splinter groups claiming that certain teachings were wrong - either by Smith or Young or others. You may want to read Succession crisis. Please note that all Latter-day Saints are Mormons, but not all Mormons are Latter-day Saints. Both are Latter Day Saints. I know this may seem confusing, but this is the historial scholarship standard or convention that we've adopted on the Wikipedia. Think of it this way: Latter-day Saint=a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Mormon=believer in the book of Mormon and/or the culture and history of the church Smith organized; Latter Day Saint=anyone who believes that Smith was at one time a prophet of God or was inspired to organize/restore a church; Latter Day Saint movement= the big group of people who claim some type of succession through Joseph Smith, Jr whether Strangite, FLDS, Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite) or otherwise. Oversimplified but adequate for this discussion. Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 19:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I wonder if there is a way, considering that the history page consists primarily of vandalism and subsequent reverts, to tag the article so that it can only be edited by those with Wikipedia accounts? I believe this might cut down significantly on the vandalism to this article, which seems to be a hot-spot for it. The Jade Knight 08:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, there isn't a way to block anonymous editing, but an administrator can prevent all editing for a short time. It is hoped that in this time the vandal(s) will have moved on. In dealing with vandals, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress and Wikipedia:Vandalism#Dealing with vandalism. If you need an admin, see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. You may want to check out Wikipedia: Administrator's reading list for more information on how vandals are handled. Cookiecaper 08:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I think there is a way to limit editing to only those who have been contributors to an article. It seems like I recently saw such a situation, the first time ever, on either theJesus or Christianity articles. I can't remember which one, but I remember seeing a notice indicating that the article had been limited to recent editors so as to prevent vandalism. I am not an admin so the process is beyond me. I would bring it up to some of our more senior admins for their input for a definitive answer. Storm Rider 09:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on the Michael Jackson article and it currently requires edits from only users with accounts that are non-new, I believe. So it can be done, although I don't know how it is done. DavidBailey 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of this article

I think that we need to take time to redefine the scope of this article. I think that this article should:

Provide a link to the disambiguation page
Discuss the origin of the word
Discuss the meaning of the word
1. Historical
2. Current
3. Distinction from "Latter Day Saint"
  1. Which LDS denominations are "Mormon"
  2. Which LDS denominations are not "Mormon"
4. Usage by CoJCoLDS
Distinction from other religious groups

I don't think that (what is turning in to a list of) prominent LDS people should be here. I think that this page should make it clear that this term does not identify any particular denomination and that beliefs of any denominations are not discussed here. And this rewrite should be done in concert with the "Mormonism" article. Both articles have attracted new readers/editors that think that these articles are about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'll even do it, if there are no objections. Val42 05:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with your proposal. I mentioned that at most "this is not a place to put everything that one has heard about Mormons; specific characters, comments, etc., but rather it is a paragraph that should describe how generally Mormons are perceived in popular culture." Though I have since recently begun to edit that section, I believe your outline would improve the article. Thank you for taking a stand. Storm Rider 08:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Also agree. However, I think something should be included about Mormon culture (apart from the religions). The Jade Knight 08:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Mormons as public figures and in popular culture either needs to become its own article, or needs to be scaled massively down. Can we agree on a focus for this article to keep things more relevant? The Jade Knight 01:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs to be removed entirely, except for the link to the list of prominent Mormons. --Kmsiever 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling us "Mormons"

The reason why we refer to ourselves as "Mormons" when talking to those not of our faith is simply because many people don't know what we are talking about when we say The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Bisric 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Translation Methods

There isnt much mention in this article about joseph smith translating the two plates with the seer stone, i thought that was quite an interesting part of it, yet seems to have been missed out. 84.9.209.110 03:30, 21 april 2006 (UTC)

Again, look under the primary articles. This article describes only the use of the nickname "Mormon" AuntieMormom 20:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

uncyclopedia.org

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Mormon

Have a laugh, at your own expense :)

My favorite: "When Mormons die they will be the only people in heaven because they wear the kind of underwear that God likes." Travb 06:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

this isn't right - I suggest a move

The name "Mormon" primarily refers to a person - one of the writers (so the book claims) of the Book of Mormon. Therefore, I think this article should be moved to Mormons and Mormon should be about the person. ( [[Mormon_(Prophet}]] should be moved to here, and this article should be called Mormons) --NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

More people know "Mormon" to represent the church than the person. The fact that the LDS church has a website www.mormon.org about the church instead of the person seems to weaken your point. I would vote that the page remains as it currently is. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article answers to what most people think of when they hear "Mormon". There is a disambiguation page to deal with the prophet vs. the term. DavidBailey 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Need a Mormon opinion

I wrote a blurb here[1] about a paper written by Steven E Jones relating to Mormonism. I'm not a Mormon myself, so I need an outside opinion in case I wrote something insulting or sacreligious.

Thanks--DCAnderson 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine. You might want to use "Latter Day Saint movement" per Wikipedia naming guidelines. DavidBailey 02:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--DCAnderson 03:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Question re. External links

I've twice posted an external link to www.allaboutmormons.com, a site with facts about Mormonism that seems relevant to this site. It has twice been deleted as "spam." Just wanted to better understand what you guys consider "spam," seeing as how the site is well researched.

Thanks. --Jacob durrant 11:09, 29 May 2006

It's spam because you are only editing to add your own site. Not only that, but the site deals with only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not Mormonism in general. --Kmsiever 19:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why my adding my own site constitutes spam, seeing as how my site isn't selling anything but only presenting relevant information. It is true that I did not draw a distinction between "mormonism" and "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," though. That may be a good reason to remove the link... --Jacob durrant 00:17, 30 May 2006

Jacob, I moved the discussion to the bottom of this discussion page because, by tradition, new topics are added at the bottom of the discussion page. I also added a signature to your latest comment; someone else signed your previous comment. You'll find that people will take you more seriously once you've learned to sign your own comments on discussion pages. (Use four tildes: ~~~~.) Other than these issues, I'm not involved in this particular discussion topic. Val42 00:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Definition of the Term "Mormon"

I don't know how much this has been debated in the past, but I think it's worthy of discussion again, especially in light of the recent increased awareness in the press of the FLDS church, and the LDS church's constant PR statements regarding the term "Mormon".

Specifically, I'm referring to the opening paragraph of the "Who is a Mormon?" section in this article:

"A Mormon is anybody who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, although the term Mormon is not officially recognized by the Church for this purpose. Many are also called Mormons by the general population because they are affiliated with or members of other religious denominations derived from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

To me, the first part of this statement is flat-out wrong, although I realize that its correctness or incorrectness depends fully on one's POV. The phrasing of that one sentence might be tolerable to me if the remaining paragraphs were more accurate, but instead, unfortunately, the article follows that statement immediately with the subcategory "Claims for exclusivity by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". To me, this creates a very biased article. If we are going to include "Claims for exclusivity by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," why do we not also include "Claims of legitimate use by the FLDS" and the "Claims of legitimate use by the Strangites", etc., etc., etc. The fact is that all the Latter Day Saint churches of which I'm aware lay claim to the legitimate use of the term "Mormon." This term was used to describe Joseph Smith's movement in the beginning, and all Latter Day Saint churches lay claim to his authority and "true" succession of the priesthood, ergo, they lay claim on the term "Mormon."

It's my perspective, and I believe the perspective of most non-LDS people, that the Church's spin on who is and who isn't a "Mormon" is just that -- PR spin. The whole thing seems based on the fact that the LDS Church in Utah is claiming that it is the one true mormon church, while all other mormon churches can't be "mormon" because they're "not affiliated" with the one church that IS the "one true church". And, I think it's inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, that should strive to be unbiased, to include such blatant PR spins from the Utah branch of mormonism. I look at it like this:

Think how absurd it would be to all of us if the Lutheran Church in America decided one day that it was the only group that had the right to lay claim on the term "Lutheran." They claim that Martin Luther was the one who started their movement, and, for various reasons they are now, and always have been, the rightful heirs of the exclusive use of that term. So, they start telling the press over and over again that it is "inappropriate" for them to refer to the Apostolic Lutheran Church of America, or the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, or the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, as "Lutherans" because those other churches that claim to be Lutherans have no affiliation with the Lutheran Church in America. Period.

Now, such reasoning may seem reasonable, and probably appealing, to the members of the Lutheran Church in America, but is totally spurious to everyone else. The LDS Church's claims are equally spurious. The difference is that because the Utah branch of mormonism is so big and powerful in comparison to all the other branches of mormonism -- and, apparently, so well represented on Wikipedia -- that such outrageous statements can be made with nary an eyebrow being raised.

Therefore, I propose that we look at the situation one more time objectively, putting aside the LDS Church's PR spin, and debate this. Other than the LDS Church's spin, why is it inappropriate or inproper for all Latter Day Saint churches to be placed under the umbrella of Mormonism -- especially when they themselves wish to be associated with the movement? Why is it appropriate to label the Strangite LDS church as part of the Latter Day Saint movement, but not appropriate to call them "Mormon"? This seems absurd to me.

It's my perspective that "Mormon" is a term like "Baptist" or "Lutheran." It's an overall general category under which people can place their own beliefs. If I believe in the Book of Mormon, and wish to follow what I perceive to be the teachings of that book, and what I perceive to be the teachings of Joseph Smith, why can I not place myself in the category of "Mormonism"? For example, there are plenty of "Baptist" churches that are actually unaffiliated with any Baptist organization. But they can still call themselves Baptist, because they believe that their set of teachings or doctrines align most closely with the Baptist tradition. In this case, they would simply be referred to as "independents" to distinguish them from Southern Baptists or American Baptists, or what have you.

So, rather than narrowing the definition of "Mormon" down to the point that it includes only one sect, I propose that we actually expand the definition of the term to include not only the traditional Latter Day Saint churches, like the Strangites or Community of Christ, but also any independants who wish to associate themselves with the Book of Mormon, and who wish to be called Mormons. KevinM 00:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

While I admire the ambition, the definition is what it is. The task of the WP editor is to accurately reflect usage, not to create new usage. In point of fact, most people in the movement absolutely reject the appelation, and do NOT want to be confused with Latter-day Saints. Since Mormons don't particularly want to be called Mormons, and non-Mormons absolutely don't want to be called Mormons, any effort to expand the name will likely be met with resistance.

Additionally, the term Lutheran is NOT comparable to the term Mormon. Lutherans embrace the name, and it is specifically part of the name of Lutheran churches and synods. The word "Mormon" plays no part in the name of any church, and in fact has pejorative origins. A better comparison would be between "Mormon" and, say, "Nigga," another pejorative term that has been sort-of embraced by some, but certainly not all, Africans. You may NOT, by fiat, decide to use it to describe people who consider it offensive -- as members of smaller Latter Day Saint denominations, and not a few members of the LDS Church, do. AuntieMormom 22:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Last sentence

As a "Mormon" I'm impressed with this paper; it adequately spells out the usage of the term, and properly uses many other terms that are typically unweildy to "non-Mormons". Good job! The only flaw was at the end: "Rick Chaney, the dean of the Madrid, Spain campus of Saint Louis University is the head of the Mormon church in Madrid, Spain." This sentence is totally out of whack with the rest of the article because "head of the Mormon church" is a confusing term and uncharacteristically off-note compared to the rest of the article. I suggest changing it to "prominent church leader". Just my 0.02 -- nice article.

I noticed that a few days ago, but hesitated to edit it because I'm not sure what his actual position is. Is he a member of one of the Quorums of the Seventy or a mission president or something? In any event, it needs an edit for clarification.--Lethargy 07:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Genealogy

I'm surprised there is virtually nothing about genealogy on this page, other then the statement "The emphasis on genealogy is not surprising given the immense importance genealogical research (www.familysearch.org) has in Mormon culture, including, in particular, as a point of outreach/contact with non-Mormons."

A discussion of the necessity to LDS members of family history research, and the beliefs behind it, is surely essential to a balanced piece. For a huge section of the public (those who enjoy the popular hobby of family history), the resources the LDS makes freely available to the community in this field presents a very positive public face, even to those who might not share their religious views. I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable enough to add such a discussion. --MichaelMaggs 19:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. Not all Mormon churches practice family history, which is precisely why you can find the information at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article. --Kmsiever 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To repeat from above, agreed. This page describes a nickname for members of a specific denomination. As such, discussion about the denomination itself belong elsewhere, not on this nickname page.

In fact, a strong argument could be made that everything beyond the first paragraph of this page belongs elsewhere. AuntieMormom 01:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Name in reference to CofC, et al

The term "Mormon" is never appropriately used to reference members of the Community of Christ, who were so concerned about the confusion of their faith with the LDS faith that they changed the name of their church. And the tiny non-CoJCoLDS, and non-CofC denominations all likewise reject the term "Mormon" as an appellation.

Since NOBODY within the movement refers to non-CofJCoLDSers as "Mormon", and virtually everyone within the movement uses the term "Mormon" as a form of contradistinction between themselves and those whom they DO call Mormons, there's no basis for applying the term here to anyone BUT the largest denomination of Saints.

The fact that Mormons themselves embrace this distinction lends further support to the argument. AuntieMormom 18:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely true! --NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 16:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If this is a matter of disagreement, we're going to need verifiable citations to reliable sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of disagreement. It's common knowledge for anyone conversant on the topic. Just clarifying here why I made the change. (But anyone seeking to debate the point is referred to the Associated Press Stylebook, which notes: “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after Smith’s death.”) AuntieMormom 21:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Also absolutely true! --NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting the intro paragraph per consensus, and as an admin will protect the page if reverted (in whatever version) until the issue is worked out on the talk page, per the policy of no major changes to controversial topics without discussing on talk pages first.

That said, we've been through this for the past four years. We are not reporters and do not use the associated press style guide. I personally have been, but that's another story. Latter-day Saint, Latter Day Saint, Mormon and non-Mormon Wikipedia editors in the WP:LDS have standardized on the Jan Shipps definitions of the terms. Mormon includes all who self-identify as such. This could include FLDS, Apostolic United Brethren, the Strangites and even those who consider themselves cultural Mormons who are not LDS. CoC, are Latter Day Saints, but not Mormon. Although the LDS church claims exclusivity for use in the press (hense your reference to AP style guide and LDS church style guide for reporters), the academic community does not use AP (associated press) styles.

You wrote: "It's common knowledge for anyone conversant on the topic." It is blatantly wrong - especially if you say "NOBODY within the movement refers to non-CofJCoLDSers as "Mormon"," FLDS, strangite, and any number of fundamentalist sects call themseslves mormon. Even the new HBO series is about "mormons, but not Latter-day Saints" Please visit the Mormonism style guide on the wiki...

You see, the 14 million Latter-day Saints (of which I am one) forget that there are between 18-20 million within the Latter Day Saint movement.

Exactly. A large number of whom self-identify as "ex mormons". They do not consider themselves Mormon. They do, however, consider themselves part of the Latter Day Saint movement. They openly and routinely distinguish themselves from "Mormons," by which they mean "members of the LDS church".

Here's the test: A member of the Community of Christ who was once a member of the LDS church will call himself an ex-Mormon. NEVER will a former member of the Community of Christ who converts to Mormonism call himself an "ex-Mormon."

See? AuntieMormom 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You're on a roll, AuntieMormom! --NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 17:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Try to see that although we agree with the AP style guide for use in the press, this is an acedemic setting and things are different here.

Someone asked for a cite. I provided a cite. The AP Stylebook is an excellent NPOV cite, and shouldn't be dismissed because this is an "acedemic" setting. AuntieMormom 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You may want to visit the John Whitmer Historical Association's web site or other Mormon or Latter Day Saint (un hypenated), scholarly forum.

The plural is forums or fora. You'll note that I've accurately hyphenated every instance of Latter Day and Latter-day throughout my edits. You may sense that I've spent a significant amount of time at the JWHA site. AuntieMormom 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Even the groups I don't like, such as sunstone and Dialogue use this terminology. if you do any research of the movement outside of BYU (which I love and graduted from) you will find this terminology.

Even there, the term is used in a historic sense, and only rarely in reference to modern denominations. AuntieMormom 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take offense at this, but in my opinion, the consensus was strong and I think that this will be non-negotiable, as it has been an issue of development and fighting and consensus and non-LDS help to get to this point over a period of four years.

The article was a mess. It's now in VASTLY better shape (though it still needs editing.) I'd be most disappointed to find that any sensible person thought "this point" was anything less than an embarrassment of bad editing and POV writing. AuntieMormom 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached,

About what? That nobody may edit the article? You're kidding, right? AuntieMormom 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Admins (including Tom Haws and myself in the fight) and arbitrators have agreed, and this will stay the usage. Mormon is bigger than Latter-day Saint - at least on the wikipedia (but not in the associated press). -Visorstuff 00:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia does not reflect reality. To put it simply, YOU'RE WRONG. --NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 17:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please reread my edits. I'm sure you'll agree that the edits contribute a great deal to the quality of the article. AuntieMormom 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the usage needs to be cleaned up of AuntieMormom's edits

That's rather over-reaching, don't you think? Could you point to a particular edit that must needs be "cleaned up"?

after everyone weighs in again here, unless a vote is given to open back up this debate, which I don't think will happen. I'm not reverting that (yet), per discussion and the warning applies to the lead paragraph. -Visorstuff 00:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And another, AuntieMormon, welcome to wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with the Mormonism style guide and wikiproject. We can definitely use the help. I'm the second-longest Latter-day Saint editor on the wiki, and as an admin, offer my help and welcome. Please familiarize yourself with the topic by reading this page's archive, as well as those at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for more information. -Visorstuff 00:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I ask that my edits be considered on their own merits. I've cited, I've improved, and I've cleaned up a very messy, unprofessional article. That someone disagrees with a comparatively minor point is no cause to mass revert good edits. AuntieMormom 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

AuntieMormon, please don't fragment previous comments unless you are going to provide signatures for each fragment. It's too hard to follow and it is too easy to lose track of who said what. --Kmsiever 03:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ro-key Dokey. AuntieMormom 03:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

AutieMormon, I didn't say your edits were bad, just that you need to familiarize yourself with the terminology used on wikipedia to distinguish between Mormon, Latter-day Saint and Latter Day Saint. You don't seem to have done that, as consensus has been reached as how to use each term. Here, at least on the wikipedia, Mormon refers to more than a Latter-day Saint. That's my point. You'll notice I didn't change any other of your edits other than the lead paragraph to reflect this terminology.

Please discuss more, as you the edits are not in line with wikipedia guidelines and styles. -Visorstuff 08:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically, you're correct. Since it applies to all pre-1847 Latter Day Saints, it's bigger than just the Utah church. The term does not, however, apply to post-1847 Latter Day Saints.

Wikipedia should reflect real life, not some politicised four-year-old "consensus" that fails to take into account the viewpoint of people who don't want to be included under the umbrella of the word "Mormon." It's not nice, nor is it accurate, to assign them to a category they themselves reject. I know two very devout Strangites. They reject the appellation "Mormon." I know some very committed p'ligs, including one who is now FLDS. They don't consider themselves Mormon. And I know LOTS of CofCers, who adamently disavow the label.

For WP to high-handedly decide they ARE Mormon, when they themselves say they aren't, is naive. Silly. Even arrogant.

So here's my proposal: Because of its NPOV, and its reflection of real-life usage, the AP Stylebook should decide the case. Neutral academician Jan Shipps, likewise -- with her thoughtful disinclination to use the word "Mormon" at all with reference to either Mormons OR other Latter Day Saints, and to instead use the word "Saints" -- should seal the deal. AuntieMormom 15:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that! --NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 17:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Jan Shipps doesn't shy away from the term mormon, rather she uses it to include all those who believe in the culture and doctrines of "Mormonism" some of which include post 1847 churches (hence many of her writing are use the word "Mormon" in the title.

The AP Style guide addition and inclusion of LDS suggestion was because of lobbying of the LDS church to make the term solely referenceable and exclusive to the LDS church. It is a PR thing to help those who automatically associate Mormon and Latter-day Saints as the same (which is about 80 percent of th world).

As someone who has studied and written about this topic for ten plus years, your polygamous friend is the exception to the norm. Apostolic Brethren, FLDS all consider themselves "Polygamous Mormon fundamentalists." In fact, many groups who leave these groups, including the Lost boys consider themselves Exmormons. The Sons Aumen Israel do not consider themselves Mormon, but Reform Mormonism, Humanistic Mormonism, Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days leaders and others all use the term Mormon to describe themselves. The Strangites still consider themselves "Mormon" [2], and if you've ever been to Wisconsin, you'll find Mormon road, a mormon temple site, Mormon this and that, and more - but not referring to the LDS Church. Same with the "Mormon" groups in Texas which are unaffilated with the LDS Church.

Academcians have used the terms Mormon, Latter Day Saint and Latter-day Saint since the early 80s to mean different things. Aside from Jan Shipps you have Robert V. Remini, Richard Bushman d. Michael Quinn and others who discriminate between the terms. And then there is (as already mentioned) groups such as sunstone and others who use the terms. In fact, the whole thing was even further publicized by the supposed "gay mormon" who was on Survivor. He considered himself a Mormon, but was never a member of the church (his mother was) and he was a utahan, but he believed in the teachings of Mormonism, but not the LDS Church. D. Michael Quinn considers himself a Latter Day Saint and a Mormon, but he is obviously not a member of the LDS church, having been excommunicated, and has written about the terms [3]. The term is an academic norm (believe me, I've used many, many times) by those of us who consider ourselves mormon historians.

You may also want to read A Religious History of the American People, Yale University Press, New Haven (1972) by Sydney E. Ahlstrom.

Just because the majority believes something, or the newspaper folks suggest terminology, doesn't mean that is how it is. I bet you discount many things the paper says as incorrect, I know I do. So why standardize on a non-academic norm of the AP? The academic community, as well as the individual groups themselves have already standardized on the terms. Why listen to the AP? Most members in the LDS church believes that "outer darkness" is where sons of perdition are assigned after the judgement, but it is not supported by scriptures nor church doctrines. Many believe polygamy will return - again, not stated in doctrines or by church leaders. Folk belief and the "Mormon trademark" fit into the same category to me. It is unsupported aside from those who just go along with the majority regardless of whether or not it is technically correct. In fact, if you look at John Taylor's writings, he defined Moromonism as the doctrines, teachings and culture of those who believe in the Book of Mormon. Should we open back up this debate to the rest of Wikipedia again? The press are trained to write for a eighth or ninth grade reading level audience. Rather than following the newspaper, lets settle on the academic norm, as illustrated by Quinn, Shipps, Remini and others. Academia is the goal of this setting, not those who have a ninth grade reading level. -Visorstuff 22:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, VS, it appears that you're so entrenched in your position that you're not willing to hear reason. The Community of Christ adamantly disavows the term "Mormon" to describe it, its doctrine or its members. Likewise, the modern Strangites (your cites are historic, not modern), the FLDS, the Temple Lot-ers, et al. Inasmuch as the VAST (even by your own admission, nearly 100%) majority of the non-CoJCoLDS Latter Day Saint community is adament about not being called "Mormon," this insistence on doing so anyway borders on being irrational. I'm an avid reader, and have read Quinn, Shipps, Remini, and MANY others. Again, with due respect, I believe you're misrepresenting their positions. The term Mormon, as I concede above, has historic relevence to the whole of the Latter Day Saint movement. It does not, however, have modern application. Lest I be misunderstood, I respect your position as a long-time WP editor, and acknowledge the good work you do here; again, with respect, your intransigence on this point is beginning to undermine your credibility. AuntieMormom 12:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"The AP Style guide addition and inclusion of LDS suggestion was because of lobbying of the LDS church to make the term solely referenceable and exclusive to the LDS church. It is a PR thing to help those who automatically associate Mormon and Latter-day Saints as the same (which is about 80 percent of th world)." - I'm afraid I am not familiar with the lobbying efforts of the LDS that you are referring to, (if that was going into an article I am sure I would want some references to prove that) but I would suspect that it was rather the opposite. Because the CoC and the Restoration Branches, if they had any lobbying power, would definately direct it towards making sure everybody knows they are Latter Day Saints but not Mormons.

And yes, I know the AP is not Wikipedia's standard, and isn't a very good standard anyway. (I strongly disagree with their standard of "anti-abortion vs pro-choice" I found in a stylebook from several years ago for instance, and I'm not sure whether it's changed) But who says academia sets the standard either? I mean, seriously, Creationists for instance are very much against what the academic community says, and NPOV remains neutral in the Creation/Evolution debate. And just becuase someone disagrees with the current academic community doesn't mean they're stupid and doesn't mean they're wrong or that their opinons shouldn't be factored in. Journalists are, in that context, a fair answer to academic opinion, if we're talking about the names of religious or political movements. But that's all, pardon the pun, "adademic"! Whatever happened to NPOV? I thought NPOV was Wikipedia's standard! We're appealing to NPOV here, not to the AP! --NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 17:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I would invite you to look at the the sources I provided (which were not comprehensive due to my wikiholiday and lack of time). In particular the Strangite page (which is not historic, but very recent) - they definitely refer to themselves as "Mormon" contrary to what you say. I've never claimed that CoC or other restorationist branches of the Josephite strain use the term - they fought hard to remove the label before the turn of the 20th century, and was mostly lost in reference to them by the 1950s. I'm not sure where you are getting your information on the FLDS from, as even the most recent recorded talks of Warren Jeffs use the term as a self-identification. I understand your position that 85 percent of the movement is LDS and are known as Mormon, however, the research shows the broader movement does as well (and in partuclar with "cultural Mormon" groups). I will say, when this was first introduced to me, I was as stubborn as you were on the term usage, but I came around and am supporting previously-held consensus of Wikipedia. Doing so does not undermine my credibility, but shows support for the wikipedia process, which as an admin I am asked to uphold.

I personally find the term "mormon" perjorative. I call myself a Latter-day Saint. However, I am a believer in Mormonism.

As this is a Mormonism style guide issue, perhaps we should put this up for consensus-building again, and if needed re-modify both Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism). However, I believe that most editors will agree with the academic nomenclature rather than that of the associated press. If we need to put this up for broader review we can both pull out as many recent references as possible, from interviews with FLDS, ex-FLDS to HBO references, to the Whitmer association, to Sunstone, to BBC references, to the LA Times (which doesn't use the AP style guide, but have their own), to Remeni, to Shipps to University of Santa Clara and University of Illinios research, to that of sociologists studying "Mormons" and "Latter-day Saints and more. Are we agreed to get broader imput on this then? There is a plethora of academic sources that back this up - not just historical, but very much modern. -Visorstuff 22:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Something of the above discussion didn't sit well with me, and so I dug out my three versions of the AP Style guide (used to report at one time, you know) and I've found what it is. The Associated Press actually suggests using the full, legal name of the church on first reference and "Mormon Church" on subsequent references. Mormon is not in reference to the church or its members, but the culture of the church and can be used in reference to Mormon fundamentalists, historical events and groups such as Mormon trail, etc. Some versions of the style guide include the following disclaimer "the term Mormon [side note: in some cases it reads Mormon Church] is not properly applied to other Latter Day Saint churches that resulted from the split after Smith's death [side note in some cases, "but can refer to fundamentalist groups split from the Mormon Church"]." It also goes on to explain the term Latter Day versus Latter-day.

It seems that the AP style guide therefore also agrees with the academic terminology stated above, I just had not read it closely enough.

Next, the Church's stye guide deals with the term "Mormon church" as acceptable. But doesn't address the term mormon except for the following instances:

When referring to Church members... “Mormons” is acceptable...(side note: of course, as they are part of the larger Mormonism movement). "Mormon” is correctly used in proper names such as the Book of Mormon, Mormon Tabernacle Choir or Mormon Trail, or when used as an adjective in such expressions as “Mormon pioneers.”

It then goes on to clarify that the terms Mormon or Mormon fundamentalist or Mormon dissidents (and I imagine one day exmormon will be included) are incorrect. It then partially quotes the AP style guide leaving out controversial areas referenced above.

Anyway, the LA Times style guide allows for the use of Mormon to refer to fundamentalist groups and some other Latter Day Saint churches. Thought I'd share. -Visorstuff 21:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put in some comments in between the rest of this conversation up to this point, so you already have some idea what I think. I think AuntieMormom was wrong to bring the AP into this discussion in the first place. I say, "Mormon = Brighamite. Latter Day Saint = Smith(Jr)ite" --NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 17:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Question for you then, Nerd42. Is FLDS Brighamite? They accept him as the successor. Are they Mormon, as they claim?

I agree with your comments about the restoration branches (RLDS, Hedrickite, restoration branches, etc), but what about the sub-brighamite groups and strangites? That is what Mormonism addresses, not the Smith III groups. -Visorstuff 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Is FLDS Brighamite? They accept him as the successor."

Then you just answered your own question - Yes.

"but what about the sub-brighamite groups and strangites? That is what Mormonism addresses, not the Smith III groups."

This is much simpler than you're making it. If they call themselves Mormons, they're Mormons. If they don't, they're not. The entire Latter Day Saint group isn't made up entirely of Mormons. Therefore, the entire group should not be called "Mormonism". --NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 15:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nerd42, that is exactly what I've been saying all along. AuntieMormon said that the term applied only to The COJCOLDS, not any other groups, which I contested, per academic norms. If you both go back and read the style guides for Mormonism for wikipedia, or the history of this talk page, they state that CoC and other Smith III (often called the missouri saints or the mid-west saints) groups do not fit within Mormonism, aside from a historical context, and should be called by the larger Latter Day Saint. Hence the hierarchy is this from large to small:

Christian=those who accept Jesus as the messiah, follow his teachings, etc.

Restorationist= those who believe that the true church needs to be (or was) restored to the earth with its authority, teachings and organization

Latter Day Saint movement=any church or group who traces teachings back to Joseph Smith.
Latter Day Saint=anyone who believes Smith was a prophet or divinely inspired to organize a church and adheres to his teachings as part of their religious beliefs
Mormonism=the history, culture and teachings of the church Smith organized, with some execptions of those who claim he was fallen, which would fit into Latter Day Saint; also, the culture and teachings of those who believe in the book of Mormon as they claim to be
Mormon=One who claims he is. This is typically LDS church members and its splinter groups, strangites who claim mormon as a term and other groups, ie in africa, utah who claim to be mormon, but discount the LDS authority claims. This group is much more cultural and historical than religious-based. For example, Mormon pioneers, Mormon belt, Mormon temple, Mormon historical site, Gay Mormon, exmormon, Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Mormon word of wisdom, Mormon polygamy, etc.
Latter-day Saint= a member of The COJCOLDS.

-Visorstuff 19:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, you have to clarify your definition of "Mormonism" there a bit more.

"Mormonism=the history, culture and teachings of the church Smith organized,"

To say that the LDS church is, exclusively, "the church that Smith organized" is by definition to take a position on the post-1844 succession crisis. The whole claim for the RLDS to exist is that the RLDS (not the LDS) is the church that Joseph Smith Jr. organized. The succession crisis is a contraversy, thus NPOV applies, thus Wikipedia can't say which of the modern Latter Day Saint churches that claim to be the successor aren't the one that Smith organized.

Furthermore, it is erronious to say that anyone who believes in the teachings of the Book of Mormon believes in "Mormonism". There are Baptists who believe in the Book of Mormon. [4] --NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 16:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)