Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)

---

(Latter-Day Saints) vs (LDS Church) Parentheticals

I know this has been discussed before. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) However, it was last dissed in 2006, so thing may be different, so I'm bringing it up again.

A discussion related to Parentheticals, i.e. (Latter Day Saints) vs (LDS Church), has come up on Talk:President of the Church. I was attempting to break off the LDS Church section and create President of the Church (LDS Church). However, JonRidinger (talk) brought up the issue that Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC would suggest that the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) is doing things backward. Trying to explain his ideas, I think he is saying that Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC would suggest that pages about the LDS Church should be without Parentheticals, and general Latter Day Saint pages should us (Parentheticals). Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC reads:

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

JonRidinger points out that since the LDS Church accounts for some 98% of the Latter Day Saint movement, it would seem that articles without Parentheticals should be the LDS Church pages, with broader "Latter Day Saint movement" version using (Latter Day Saints). For example:

Currently appears as
General Latter-Day Saint Topic	LDS Church Specific	Community of Christ Specific
First Presidency	First Presidency (LDS Church)	First Presidency (Community of Christ)
Quorum of the Twelve	Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church)	Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (Community of Christ)
Should appear as (per Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC)
General Latter-Day Saint Topic	LDS Church Specific	Community of Christ Specific
First Presidency (Latter Day Saints)	First Presidency	First Presidency (Community of Christ)
Quorum of the Twelve (Latter Day Saints)	Quorum of the Twelve Apostles	Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (Community of Christ)

A part of me thinks he's right. However, the issues I have are

1. It may give the LDS Church to much of a pro-POV. Since a large number of sects use the same terms, we may be relegating them to hard to find pages. The other sects may not be properly represented.
2. The Latter-Day Saints movement includes that LDS Church. Since all LDS Church pages are part of the Latter-Day Saints movement it seems backwards to make the Main page only about the LDS Church and the Parenthetical page about the Latter-Day Saints movement as a whole. Kind of like making the "Dog" page use Dog (Mutt), because the most common bread is mutt, if that makes sense.
3. Latter-Day Saints movement came first. Again this gose along with #2. Since the general Latter-Day Saints movement was first then shouldn't it get the main page?
4. Someone is going to have to change a huge number of pages.

I thought I would bring this up hear, since it effect the standard Naming convention.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Previously I was leaning toward PRIMARY mattering most on the naming of the President of the Church articles, but I can see now that there is a more central argument for things staying how they are: NPOV is core policy, and it trumps PRIMARY. If the article titled "President of the Church" is LDS Church specific, it does seem that we are giving credence to the LDS Church being the true continuance/successor to the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) founded by Joseph Smith in 1830. Regardless of my personal convictions about that topic, WP can't be seen as taking an editorial stance on that question. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That in itself is a POV statement from a Latter Day Saint perspective. From a Wikipedia perspective, we're simply recognizing that the LDS Church is far better known than the other groups in the movement based on sheer numbers and available sources. It has nothing to do with "giving credence" to any position that the LDS Church is the "true successor". --JonRidinger (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with much of what has been said above. There is an issue of POV if we choose to make the LDS Church institutions the primary meaning of these terms which are common throughout the movement. I would generally be in favour of keeping things how they are right now. I too have reversed my !vote at the POTC discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say that it's not us "choosing to make the LDS Church institutions the primary meaning...", but rather a case of us recognizing the reality that they already are based on sources available. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I meant us as WP editors choosing to convert President of the Church into a page solely about the LDS Church's institution. I wasn't referring to objective reality outside of WP, but I understand what you mean. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it here! I definitely think we need to examine how we name articles in this project. I think our desire to be "fair" and not allow articles to be exclusively LDS is one cause, but also the general view of looking at the movement as being equally known as and encompassing the LDS Church. Instead, we should be looking at the individual organizations, one of which has 15 million members, one with 250,000, and the rest with a few thousand or a few hundred members. While "Latter Day Saint movement" is great for categorizing and grouping these many articles together, that doesn't mean the movement itself is as known as or better known. To answer each point:

1. Wikipedia isn't about equal representation, it's about notability. Because the LDS Church is significantly larger than the other Latter Day Saint movement denominations, not only does the Church itself have a significant presence in the search for sources, but most secondary sources that use the respective terms (President of the Church, First Presidency, etc.) are likely going to be referring to the LDS Church. All of the articles would have a hatnote as well, mentioning the broader, but lesser-known, use of the term, just like with any primary topic that has multiple articles with the same or very similar names. We deal much the same with city articles. I used the example of Cleveland being the article on the city in Ohio even though there are many cities called Cleveland, some of which are older. Another example is Miami and Miami (disambiguation).

2. Again, it's about notability. While the movement does include the LDS Church, which is more known? I don't think anyone can argue that for the vast majority of people, especially those outside any of the Latter Day Saint denominations, the LDS Church is far more well-known than the overall movement. My experience in Northeast Ohio and elsewhere in the United States has been that most people have heard of the "Mormons", but have no idea that there are other denominations besides the "Mormon Church" in Utah. Even locally, most do not realize the Kirtland Temple isn't owned by the LDS Church. I've lost count how many times I've had to explain that to people and how the Community of Christ is related! (and yes, I realize that's anecdotal) :)

3. Notability and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC aren't determined by first, but by better-known. On top of that, all Latter Day Saint movement denominations consider themselves to have been founded at the same time; it's all a matter of perspective as to which "came first".

4. True, though one person doesn't have to do them all, nor would they have to all happen soon. It is something that needs to be discussed as more articles are created. It's also not a must that all need to be changed. I would take it case by case, though I do think in most cases, if it's a uniquely Latter Day Saint term (i.e. not used by other churches/organizations) the LDS Church uses, the LDS usage is most likely going to be the primary topic. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

As for WP:NPOV, I'm not seeing how recognizing the LDS versions as the primary topic would violate that. Again, it's not about equality here, it's about notability. Stating that the LDS definition of a term shared with other Latter Day Saint denominations is better known isn't a simple matter of point of view, it's also a matter of numbers. Even if all the other Latter Day Saint denominations used the same definition, it would still be used by no more than 300,000 people vs. 15 million. That's on top of searching for sources for the various terms. It would be like saying the article on Miami should be "Miami, Florida" since it's POV to say Miami, Florida is the primary topic over things like the Miami people or smaller towns like Miami, Texas. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• An interesting discussion, in which I hope to comment further when I'm not on my way out the door. Very quickly, though, here's one idea that I don't think has been discussed yet that might resolve the issue: make the generic term a redirect to the most common usage, and add the disambiguating parenthetical onto the broad term articles.

General Latter-Day Saint Topic	LDS Church Specific	Community of Christ Specific	Redirect to LDS Church specific topic
First Presidency (Latter Day Saints)	First Presidency (LDS Church)	First Presidency (Community of Christ)	First Presidency
Quorum of the Twelve (Latter Day Saints)	Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church)	Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (Community of Christ)	Quorum of the Twelve

I've used up my meager WP time for the day, but I'll comment further when I get the chance. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly a possibility, though I would say it isn't necessary. There seems to be a desire to look at each denomination of the Latter Day Saint movement as equally notable, when that is simply not the case. It would be one thing if the LDS Church were somewhat larger than the rest, but it is significantly larger than all the others combined on top of being far more known based on secondary sources. Again, it has nothing to do with POV.

That said, in looking at MOS:TITLES, in some instances, we have unnecessary disambiguation that can be addressed beside the shared terminology articles. "Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" is used by the LDS Church and the Bickertonites, so clearly there, the LDS Church, at 1,250 times the size of the Bickertonites (15 million vs. 12,000), is the primary topic. It naturally disambiguates from Quorum of the Twelve, which is the broader Latter Day Saint movement article. The Community of Christ calls theirs the "Council of Twelve Apostles" and there is no other organization using that name, yet the title currently includes "(Community of Christ)" suggesting there is another Council of Twelve Apostles of equal or greater notability. Articles that have natural disambiguation don't need parentheticals. Currently, both Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Council of Twelve Apostles direct to Quorum of the Twelve. Instead, Council of Twelve Apostles (Community of Christ) should be Council of Twelve Apostles and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church) should be Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (Bickertonite article would stay as is), with appropriate hatnotes on them and other related articles. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• When referreing to something related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we should used say First Presidency (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). We do not insist other religious groups like the Church of God in Christ get regularly abreviated. Yet you will always find The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the signs connected with buildings of The Church, while a great many of the signs of the Church of God in Christ use COGIC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Response: Since the current president of the Church has asked that we not refer to the church as the LDS Church and style guides, such as AP, Chicago, etc. are changing, I think that is sufficient to no longer use the term LDS Church to refer to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. LDS Church is not the name of the church. Latter-day Saints (hyphen, lowercase d) are the people, so that would be fine unless the reference is to the church, in which case, it should be Church of Jesus Christ or Church of Jesus Christ of LDS if disambiguation is needed. Zoobaloogle (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in (country) or Mormonism in (country)

What is the standard for article titles for the church's involvement in a country? Debating whether to keep Draft:Mormonism in China or rename it back to Draft:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in China AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It's been moved to mainspace and renamed to Latter Day Saint movement in China. I guess that's a third possibility? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should only be called "Latter Day Saint movement in China" if it discusses sects of Mormonism aside from LDS. Otherwise, it should be called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in China" to match the other ones. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• The articles should be at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in China etc. The articles are about the Church in those countries, its growth and expansion and current condition. The Church interacts with governments as an institution, not as part of a broader movement, so we should recognize this reality in these articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Paranthetical (Mormon) in articles is now POV. Recommend change

I recommend we change the Manual of Style for articles about people. Right now, if they belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints(LDS Church), and needs to be disambiguated, convention is to put (Mormon) after their name (i.e. W. W. Phelps (Mormon)). This is an an unnecessary stick in the eye and should be changed. I recommend (LDS Church), which is standard in Wikipedia for referring to the church everywhere else. Keeping it the way it is is literally considered a "victory for Satan"[[1]] by members of the church, and will paint Wikipedia as anti-mormon to that segment. The word used to be NPOV, but it no longer is. Epachamo (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate here...the full quote by Nelson is: "To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan."[2] He literally gives "LDS Church" as an example of that in the previous sentence. So how is "LDS Church" any less a victory than "Mormon"? More to the point, is it fair for us to be rebranding people long-dead who self-identified as "Mormon"? Take for instance Joseph F. Smith who, when asked at gunpoint if he was a Mormon, responded "Yes siree; dyed in the wool; true blue, through and through." The LDS Church has every right to determine its own name, but I think this is bigger than that. Nearly 200 years of history have determined that the name of the religion (not the church) is "Mormonism" and throughout most of that history, "Mormon" has been the most concise and recognizable way of communicating that someone is an adherent. ~Awilley (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Good points. Your devil has convinced me that "LDS Church" probably isn't the best replacement. What do you think about "(Latter-day Saints)"? This is in accordance with the church's requested MOS [3], and seems reasonable to me. Some of the requests in their MOS are pretentious and not appropriate for Wikipedia, but this one seems reasonable. Some counters to your devil:

• I think a good analogue would be the word "Negro". I doubt you will find a single article in Wikipedia that uses the word "Negro" not in quotes, or as part of a title. Instead the word that is used is "black". 100 years ago however, the word "black" was considered offensive by some, and "Negro" or "colored" was more appropriate. Even though Martin Luther King Jr. proudly referred to himself as a Negro, it is not erasing hundreds of years of history to refer to him today as black. The audience of Wikipedia is today's readers, not those of the past.
• If you asked Joseph F. Smith (not at gun point), to choose a title for his article, I'd be willing to bet he would choose "Latter-day Saint" over "Mormon".
• "Latter-day Saint" is also concise. Why offend someone if you don't have to?
• "Latter-day Saint" is not objectionable to ex-Mormons. Referring to the church as "the restored Church of Jesus Christ" probably would be objectionable to a lot of readers, which is why (LDS Church) should probably still be used.

Anyway, what say ye of (Latter-day Saint) instead? Epachamo (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Epachamo: I don't think "Negro" is a fair comparison. That term is almost universally recognized as being offensive and has been out for decades. By contrast, the word "Mormon" probably has more positive associations now than at any time in its history, and less than 3 years ago the LDS Church was running ad campaigns of members proudly proclaiming "I'm a Mormon".

On "Mormon" vs. "Latter-day Saint" I think the former is more recognizable and concise which are both factors to consider in naming criteria (which I'm not an expert on and will need to review). Subject's preference and frequency of use in reliable sources are other factors to consider. I think the policy is at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA

In any case, if a change is to be made, I think it will need some outside input from the broader community through a WP:RFC or WP:RM. ~Awilley (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

My point with "Negro" is that a word acceptability changes. I grant that it is not a perfect analogy.

"Mormon" might be more recognizable and concise, but we use "Latter Day Saint" anyway when referring to the group as a whole. Why don't we use "Mormon" for the Community of Christ? The article it says, "denominations such as the Community of Christ, ...may be offended by being called Mormon" so we use (Latter Day Saint). If we make the allowance for the Community of Christ, why not for the others?

Thanks for the tip on WP:RFC. I feel like you have been a wikimentor to me pointing me in the right direction on several different articles, policies and issues. It is much appreciated. Epachamo (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You both make valid points, but I think it's time to reconsider the use of "Mormon" as well. The fact the people like the young Joseph F. Smith self identified as Mormon at gun point doesn't mean much. Is he really going to say, "Well, actually, we find that name offensive. Please call us Latter Day Saints?" The early church struggled for years against the term "Mormon", as documented at Mormon (word). The Columbia Journalism Review article cited on the MOS talk page says, “In the early days of the restored Church, terms such as Mormon Church and Mormons were often used as epithets—as cruel terms, abusive terms.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has also struggled against it sporadically over the decades, as seen here. The fact that Brigham Young and others in that era partly bowed out of the struggle does not mean that that is how they truly self identified. I believe it has forever been the case for the majority of members of all denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement to not prefer the term "Mormon". The only possible exception I can think of is fundamentalist denominations, and I just don't know enough about them. I don't know why it is that the early RLDS church succeeded in shedding the name "Mormon" but the church that followed Brigham Young did not. Perhaps they just had bigger things to worry about. But as the Columbia article says, 'In this way, the church is joining the tendency for groups to claim their own names rather than the names others people give them, as we have seen with “African American” (instead of “colored,” or “Negro,” or worse), “Latino” (instead of “Hispanic” or “Spanish”), and others.' I think it's time to reopen the discussion. For years I have found a lot of the current style guide surrounding the term "Mormon" to be unintentionally disrespectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemc0 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

References

• Mormon is a very depricated term. It was never the truly prefered term of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and was always a term forced on them by outsiders. Latter-day Saint is not a long term, it is reasonably descriptive and can easily be used. This is especially true since some of these articles are on people. I think though when it is an institution or practice of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that is being covered we should use the full name of the Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC about parenthetical disambiguation of adherents to the Latter Day Saint Movement in "Names of People" section

Should disambiguation for adherents to the post-1844 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints branch of the Latter Day Saint Movement be changed to use (Latter-day Saint) instead of (Mormon)? (see above talk page section and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints)#Names_of_people Epachamo (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Change to (Latter-day Saint). It is now considered POV to the membership of the post-1844 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Recommend (Latter-day Saint) instead of (Latter Day Saint) to keep the subtle distinction between Brighamite branch and others branches. I believe that (Latter-day Saint) meets all the criteria of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, and if it is agreed that it does not for the reason of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, then pre-1844 articles should be changed to use (Mormon) as well for the same reason. Epachamo (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Change to (Latter-day Saints). I object to using Mormon for any. In the era before 1844 no member of The Church of Jesus Christ ever embraced the term Mormon. Well into the 20th-century writers who were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints always made sure to put any use of the term in quotes and normally included with it statements like "so called". The terms used internally in the 1830-1844 were Saints and Latter-day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just for clarity, are you in favor of changing it to "(Latter-day Saint)" or "(Latter-day Saints)" with an 's'? Currently, it is "(Mormon)" singular, but for CoC members, it is ("Latter Day Saints") plural. Personally, singular makes the most sense to me if it is about a person, and plural if it is about a topic like baptism, but I don't feel strongly about it. Epachamo (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep (Mormon). This is by far more common and more widely-understood than "(Latter-day Saint)". I can see the concern, but I'm not convinced it's as big a problem as would justify changing the naming convention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Good Olfactory: Right now, articles are marked as (Latter Day Saints) for the pre-1844 church (i.e. William Marks (Latter Day Saints)). Do you feel those should be changed to (Mormon) as well per recognizability? Right now it is not, presumably as the article says, because they "may be offended by being called Mormon". I feel like we can't have it both ways, either change it for all who are offended (Latter Day Saint), or change it for all because it is recogizable (Mormon). Epachamo (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• No I don't, because "Mormon" only generally applies to members of the LDS Church and members of Mormon fundamentalist groups. It's not nearly as common when referring to the pre-succession crisis group or (ahem) non-Mormon post-succession groups. I think the only reason non-Mormon Latter Day Saints would be offended is because it would cause confusion with the post-1844 LDS Church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Good Olfactory: On the contrary, it is extremely common to refer to the pre-1844 church as Mormon. I'd be interested in a book that actually makes the distinction, or does not refer to Joseph Smith as a Mormon. All the major histories, "Rough Stone Rolling", "Joseph Smith the Making of a Prophet", and even articles such as 1838 Mormon War fail to make that distinction. I went through my 50 or so history books on Mormonism and could only find one that made the distinction. The one I found, "The Book of Mormon's Witness to Its First Readers", was written by an apostle of the Community of Christ, and even he had to clarify that "use of the term Mormon here is a broad reference to the movement founded by Joseph Smith Jr.". The most common way to refer to members of the pre-1844 movement is without a doubt "Mormon", probably by at least a 10 to 1 margin. Epachamo (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• That's fair. This suggests to me a broader use of "(Mormon)" is appropriate in WP, rather than further restricting its usage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep (Mormon) It's definitely more recognizable for a general audience, and I expect that for historical figures in particular it is more in line with the body of sources. Consider this: the name of the religion is unquestionably Mormonism. That's how it's referred to in tertiary sources and religion textbooks. The name of the largest denomination of Mormonism is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that church clearly has a right to ask people to call it by its full name. That's why we don't use terms like Mormon Church. But for the people themselves it's more complicated. There's a lot of diversity in Mormonism. In addition to the regular active engaged LDS Church members you have a ton of Less-active and Inactive Mormons, Liberal Mormons, Jack Mormons, Cultural Mormons, Fundamentalist Mormons, Molly Mormons, Ex-Mormons, Anti-Mormons, and probably more subsets I can't think of right now. The church cannot unilaterally dictate how we should refer to all these people, let alone the people who lived their whole lives as "Mormons" and are now long dead.
  There's also the issue of WP:RECENTISM. For almost 200 years now the most recognizable term for adherents of Mormonism has been Mormons. This big recent push for Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is less than 2 years old. Yes, there has always been a general preference for that which has been emphasized more or less under different leadership, but consider that from 2011 to 2018 the LDS Church was running a large ad campaign featuring its members proudly proclaiming "I'm a Mormon". That's a 180 degree turn in the span of a year. If this push outlives the current church leadership and a majority of newer academic sources abandon the term Mormon then that would be significant enough for us to make the change here too. But for now Wikipedia is meant to follow the sources, not lead the way with new trends.
  That said, in the extremely unlikely case that we have a living person in church leadership whose middle initial isn't enough to disambiguate him from another famous person of the same name, we could use the disambiguator "LDS Church" after his (or possibly her) name. ~Awilley (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Awilley: Everything you mentioned also applies to pre-1844, yet we use (Latter Day Saint) for pre-1844. Joseph Smith and other members of the early church referred to themselves as Mormons. They are referred to as Mormons in secondary and tertiary sources colloquially and in scholarly literature. Members of the pre-1844 church are more recognizably know as Mormons. I think one or the other should change. Epachamo (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• If this is the case, and I believe it is, maybe we should change them all to "(Mormon)". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'd honestly support one or the other. I think Awilley's solid logic has prevailed on me somewhat. Epachamo (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Slightly off-topic, but I have re-read all of the naming conventions again, and they are quite intricate and confusing. It's difficult for editors to know when to use "Latter Day Saint movement" vs. "Mormonism", and when to use "Latter Day Saint(s)" vs. "Mormon(s)". Then there are church-specific articles that use different disambiguators. And then there's the issue of a "Latter Day Saint" being different than a "Latter-day Saint". It's highly esoteric and we may be better off just figuring out how most sources deal with these issues and going with it. I'd be inclined to think that "Mormonism" and "Mormon(s)" are dominant, as has been pointed out. This creates a slight problem though if those to whom the name applies object to the terminology commonly used. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Change I asked our subject librarian at the BYU library his opinion on the subject. He suggested using professional qualifiers. Though they would be a little longer, they would be more specific. So John H. Taylor could be "(Latter-day Saint leader)" while the other John Taylor could be "(Latter-day Saint prophet)". Individuals who were notable outside of their religion could use a parenthetical appropriate to their profession. I admit I don't know if this would help distinguish between the many kinds of Mormons. Would making a more specific parenthetical be, as Good Olfactory mentioned, "esoteric"? Certainly using "Mormon" for all the sects is simpler, but I think that could also be confusing. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I like it. :) Rogerdpack (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Change use of "Mormon" as an adjective for the members is somewhat discouraged these days by style guides. Blessings! Rogerdpack (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)