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

Abortion

My edit was reverted. I added The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:Anti-abortion movement in the United States which seems acceptable. The challenge is: “ Church policy permits abortion in certain cases” which if properly researched, accounts for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being 1% against abortion. Here is the citation: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/ First sentence: “ Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.” Thus, The Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder-day Saints are 99% against abortion, meaning, it should most certainly be represented. Twillisjr (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

A reversion does feel extreme. Couldn't this be kept and edited slightly to reflect the exceptions that LDS believes are reasonable? Jim Killock (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've misunderstood as it's about adding a category, not general information. I think this depends on how the anti-abortion movement frames itself, and that is beyond my expertise to know. Jim Killock (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

In 2016, the Pew Research Center released this chart: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/06/21/where-major-religious-groups-stand-on-abortion/ft_16-06-22_churchabortion/ and the same edit was done to the Catholic Church page without resistance. Twillisjr (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

That seems clear. I see there is a Wikipedia page that makes the same point. Jim Killock (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a distinction between having anti-abortion teachings and being part of the anti-abortion movement in the US. With the Catholic Church (to which the category was added only a few days ago by the OP, so not a good indication of WP pattern) there were official groups within the church, such as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, involved directly in movement events and efforts. I don't know if there is anything similar for the LDS Church. I am not seeing any other religious groups or denominations with similar teachings on abortion being included in the category. Also, the phrasing of the movement's WP page which says the movement "finds support in" various religious groups seems to imply that there is overlap but not outright partnership or membership by the actual churches. Certainly there are LDS that are part of the anti-abortion movement, but there are also LDS that are part of the pro-choice movement. Further, categories should be apparent from the body of the article - what text in the article supports this categorization? --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Views on birth control in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has some information, in the abortion subsection, which can be improved with some of the information and citations I’ve provided. Then, excerpts may be shared with the main page. Category follows. Twillisjr (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

2 Months Later: “Abortion” isn’t in the article. Twillisjr (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Outdated information

Reletively Recently, the church made a statement in support of the lgbtq movement, can someone please look into including this in the article, and find some secondary sources about this. Not a kitsune (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Article lead

As noted on the peer review, the lead in this article does not reflect the page content, which as around 40% content on criticisms of the church, where the lead has about two sentences. AIUI to meet GA criteria, the page should reflect the Manual of Style for the Lead section, which states that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."

As of present, the imbalance of the lead also violates NPOV, by de-emphasising the criticisms in relation to the sources, as reflected in the body of the page. Jim Killock (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Acknowledging I'm coming to this thread a bit later than it started, this does seem like a problem, though I can't help but think a more comprehensive solution would be to follow the advice of WP:CRITICISM and, rather than section off criticism and controversy into another section, to weave the content throughout. To use just one example, the section on Home and family would be a reasonable place to bring up polygamy and queerphobic teachings. The tithing and financial controversy sections could be combined into a financial practices section. Etc. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea; if the authors want to move the article to FA status as they have suggested, this kind of change is likely to make it easier to get there. Jim Killock (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Formerly referred to as Mormon

The name Mormon Church is inaccurate, confusing, and disrespectful to the members of the church. Why not use the actual name which the church identifies with, rather than insist on using a nickname that the church rejects? Truth971 (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Refer to the FAQ at the top of the talk page Fanfanboy (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Instagram post on women

@Trevdna, Regarding this, my gut says it's more than can be dismissed as WP:Recentism. Two days after the SLTribune article used as a source in the above edit, the NYTimes picked up the story. Link to NYTimes story (There's also a copy on Yahoo News that's less likely to be paywalled.) ~Awilley (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Can they really be called Christian?

The LDS rejects many of the key beleifs that make Christianity as we know it today. If you ask Christians from any of the major or early denominations, especially if you ask religious leaders from these denominations, they will reject that this group follows Christianity. I have seen some religious maps representing the Mormons in a separate category, apart from Christians. KeymasterOne (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

As per the FAQ, "there is a consensus that reliable academic sources generally agree that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian denomination." And as a member myself, I see other Christians treat the Church as Christian. Fanfanboy (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

LDS theology espouses beliefs regarding the nature of God, which include the concept of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as distinct beings rather than the traditional Christian understanding of the Trinity. Christianity is a monotheistic religion, I don't see how it would be possible to describe the trinity as distinct beings. The LDS church also contains additional scriptures on top of the Bible. These are not even all of the beliefs that the LDS encompass, which are separate to Christianity. KeymasterOne (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What matters is what the majority of reliable sources refer to the denomination as and that is Christian. I see people getting upset sometimes about Jehovah's Witnesses for similar reasons. Wikipedia isn't about people's personal opinions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed many times on the talk page. The consensus is to describe the church as Christian. Please check the talk page archives to see if your opinions have already been discussed. Bahooka (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not about personal opinions here. The Catholic, Orthodox and many Protestant denominations reject these new scriptures, and the claim that Joseph Smith is a prophet. How could they be Christians if most of these churches, encompassing the clear majority of the world's Christian population all reject the Mormon theology? If it is about personal opinions, as you mentioned, here's mine:

The only difference between Islam and the LDS' closeness to Christian theology is that Muslims themselves agree that their religion is separate from Christianity, while the LDS members disagree that their religion is separate from Christianity.

But since Wikipedia is not a good place for personal opinions, I didn't post that. KeymasterOne (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

How could they be Christians if most of these churches, encompassing the clear majority of the world's Christian population all reject the Mormon theology? This is where you are getting into your own personal opinions even if you don't realize it. The majority of religious scholars (again, summarizing what reliable sources say is what we do) define this as a Christian denomination. Again, listen to what other people are saying in the archives of this talk page. This information does not contradict that other denominations have their own interpretations on theology and the approach taken in this article is consistent with our policy on a neutral point of view. A Wikipedia article isn't going to tell you that any religion is the true one or that others are false. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox classification

I reverted a recent change that switched the classification from "Restorationist" to "New Religious Movement". The argument was made that "Restorationist" isn't a classification. However, at Christian denomination#Major branches, Restorationism was listed as one of the six main groups into which Christianity can be divided. While NRM and Restorationist are not mutually exclusive (there are overlaps), the classification "Restorationist" is more informative and more inline with how the classification parameter is used on other Christian church pages. I also did a scan of Christian churches/groups in List of new religious movements that use this infobox, and the majority founded after 1830 do not list NRM as its classification (I think I found only one or two that listed NRM). - FyzixFighter (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back and FyzixFighter: I just now saw this discussion a short while after having removed the classification. I don't really care or have an opinion either way. But by this point, it's clear that any classification must include a citation to a supporting reliable source per WP:BURDEN, since we have two unsourced claims being challenged both ways. Left guide (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The current article doesn't actually seem to mention NRM at all which is bizarre, perhaps it was scrubbed by religious extremists at some point? Our page on New Religious Movements spends a lot of time on the LDS, but that isn't reflected in any of the LDS pages I can see. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that they aren't mutually exclusive, the LDS Church is both Restorationist and a New Religious Movement. I'm happy with either or both, but I tend to see using Restorationist and not NRM as averring from NPOV and calling these groups not what is most relevant but what they want to be called... None self identify as a NRM as far as I am aware. The LDS Church is more like the Unification Church than most other Restorationist movements in that they have additional fundamental beliefs things which are not found within Christianity. If we're making a scale of "most Christian to least Christian" LDS and Unification are about as Christian as Christians are Jews. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Are you able to identify any sources that specifically refer to the LDS Church as a new religious movement? I see a lot of what appears to be personal analysis of religion, but it ultimately comes down to what the sources say. In addition to the New religious movement article, there's also New religious movements in the United States which may be another useful starting point in researching for sources. Left guide (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Both of those pages contain such sources. I am unaware of any full length publication on new religious movements which does not, they almost all start with the LDS. They aren't just a NRM, they are the archetypical NRM. Its also used within Mormon studies itself extensively, the theme of Claremont's mormon studies conference (the largest not organized by BYU) in 2021 was "‘Mormon’: The Politics of Naming New Religious Movements" for an example from within BYU see [1]. Its not really a contest, both can be sourced... One (NRM) admittedly more extensively than the other, but both could be the way to go. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's not a contest, and that both can be included (if reliably-sourced of course). I should have been more clear about that at the outset. Left guide (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This Restorationist church has its origins in nineteenth-century America, and this identity persists is a straightforward identification of the denomination as "restorationist" in a comfortably non-religious academic context. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

"the LDS Church is both Restorationist and a New Religious Movement." True, though this "new" movement has nearly 200 years of history and surprising staying power. In any case, Restorationism covers Christian new religious movements that arose in the 19th century, as one of the main effects of that new "religious fervor" in the Second Great Awakening. Remarkably different that previous versions of Christianity. Dimadick (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

"Restorationist" is better than NRM in the infobox because it is far more descriptive in concisely locating the church in the overall hierarchy of religion. (Religion > Christianity > Christian primitivist/restorationist > Mormonism, instead of Religion > New Religious Movments > Mormonism.) That helps clarify its relationship to other early-American NRMS like Pentacostalism (Christian, but not primitivist), Jehovah's Witnesses (Christian and primitivist), and Scientology (not Christian). ~Awilley (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen Pentacostalism referred to as an NRM and google isn't turning up anything, source? I will also point out that it doesn't have to be an either or situation, we can have two (some infoboxes have up to a half dozen). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen Pentacostalism referred to as an NRM—From the first page of Google results for "Pentecostalism AND New Religious Movement": Pentcostalism is a relatively new religious movement, having its beginnings, most authorities say, in 1901 (The West Virginia Encyclopedia, West Virginia Humanities Council, last revised August 8, 2023). From a GoogleScholar search: New members of three NRMs in Germany (a Pentecostal parish, the New Apostolic Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses; (Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, February 2008).

some infoboxes have up to a half dozen—While other articles might list half a dozen categories, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE reminds us to keep infoboxes brief where possible. Listing in the infobox the most precise and relevant category—"Christian restorationist" (placing the denomination in context with other restorationist denominations, like the Disciples of Christ and Jehovah's Witnesses) is more informative than "NRM". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

"relatively new religious movement" =/= new religious movement... That Nova Religio articles does use it though, that surprises me. I don't see how excluding NRM is informative, don't you want them to know that the LDS Church is a NRM? Or do you disagree with the characterization of the LDS Church as a NRM? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with overstuffing sidebars with every possible description and favor terms that are more precise over terms that are less precise, and the Manual of Style favors briefer infoboxes where possible. Awilley has thoroughly explained how "restorationist" more precisely identifies the church within the religious landscape and is therefore suitable for the infobox. There is a whole body text in which to convey information, beyond the infobox which for space considerations is only a partial summary of key points of information—like so. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Shortening wikilinks for readability and less visual clutter

I would like to seek WP:CONSENSUS on some good faith edits that were made by mikeblas recently before I try to undo them. This page says "Do not attempt to remove the words "Mormon" or "LDS" from the page" yet "Main article" and "See also" wikilinks were changed from saying LDS Church to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, changes which I believe are in violation of that policy.

For example, the "Demographics" subsection wikilinks now say:

"Main articles: Demographics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Membership statistics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Membership history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

Previously it stated (and I propose it should be returned to say something like):

"Main articles: Demographics of the LDS Church, Membership statistics of the LDS Church, and Membership history of the LDS Church"

As can be seen here, it's much more concise while still being clear when it just says "LDS Church" in the multiple wikilinks. By restating a lengthy title that has an already defined LDS initialism the article is being unnecessarily redundant (and the article itself is arguably already wordy). I believe it would lead to less visual clutter to shorten all the wikilinks on this page following when "LDS Church" is defined, and to restore the wikilinks to how they were before the initialism LDS was removed. I understand wanting to list the full article titles, but in this case it gets cumbersome and unnecessary when it's done over 30 times in the article's wikilinks. Thoughts anyone? Pastelitodepapa (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I changed these links because they're used for navigation. If a reader sees a navigation link that says "X" and they click on it and end up redirected to "Y", it's a jarring and a bit confusing experience. As far as I can tell, the target articles here have always been named with "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and not "LDS Church". I assumed the hat note you referenced applied to prose and not directly linking articles. And the WP:LDSMOS policy it references doesn't mention navigation links or article titles at all ... but it does refer to MOS:1STOCC.

Presumably, the articles were named with the same project policies in mind. Maybe the article names should be changed if they're not compatible. MOS:ACROTITLE seems to support this, as it says Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Responding to the "jarring and a bit confusing experience" bit. I would argue that someone at the bottom of this article clicking on a link to "Membership history of the LDS Church" should not be at all confused when they end up at "Membership history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". I don't think it's WP:EGG-y in this context if we don't redundantly refer to the title of the article. ~Awilley (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That might be because you're already familiar with the material. For me (and I expect most people), "LDS Church" doesn't seem at all the same as "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

I also note there are a few links in this article that use the longer name because redirects don't exist. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Theological criticism

Hi, I recently approved [2] this pending change by an IP, because it was a change made in good faith and seemed reasonable enough to me (although I made some slight changes here). These changes were undone entirely by FyzixFighter. While I agree that there should be stronger sourcing, I don't think this necessarily warrants wholesale removal of content. This theological stance is well known. Jehovah's Witnesses run into similar issues – scholars generally consider them to be a Christian denomination, while a substantial amount of other Christian denominations object to this classification. So it seems reasonable enough to me that this would be included in a criticism section. Maybe the phrasing "most Christians" in particular should be removed, as that really is a sweeping statement, but I genuinely think there could be something here about this. Thoughts? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Some examples of what I mean: [3] by the Christian Century, this short explanation by BBC Religions [4], or what Pew Research Centre says here. Unfortunately I don't have an extensive book collection like I do for the JWs but I think this is enough to show that it's not just a university magazine that says this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This raises an interesting matter, and I think the Christian perception of Latter-day Saints as non-Christian/un-Christian is an encyclopedic topic—of course, best presented by citing sources that analyze the perception, rather than by citing sources that aver that perception themselves. As I'm persuaded by WP:CRITICISM that 'criticism'/'controversy' sections are better off avoided, with such content instead woven throughout (e. g. historical plural marriage and queer exclusion as part of teachings about family and sexuality; investments as part of financial practices, etc.), so too I think it'd be better to incorporate such content in the main body of the article. Maybe as part of the "history" section, noting various points in history when the charge of 'un-Christianness' was levied (with it taking on different valences in the 19th and 20th centuries)?

As far as sources about this go, here is a smattering that I'm familiar with:

• Jan Shipps, "Is Mormonism Christian? Reflections on a Complicated Question", chapter in her Sojourner in the Promised Land: Forty Years Among the Mormons (University of Illinois Press, 2000), 335–357: Shipps narrates some of the history of the "Mormons aren't Christian" charge in the later 20th century by contextualizing it with conservative Evangelicals similarly charging liberal Protestantism with being 'un-Christian'.
• Stephen Webb, Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn From the Latter-day Saints (Oxford University Press, 2013): in chapter 4, "Branches on the Family Tree", Webb reports that Many Christians treat Mormons as members of an exotic religious species that has nothing in common with the Christian genome (113) (As the title of the book suggests, the formal finding of Webb's study is to consider Mormons Christians, contrary to the perception that he describes)
• David T. Smith, "Predicting Acceptance of Mormons as Christians by Religion and Party Identity", Public Opinion Quarterly 80, no. 3 (Fall 2016): 783–795, https://doi.org10.1093/poq/nfw022: This is an interesting source about demographic predictors in the United States for whether a person considers Latter-day Saints "Christian" or "not Christian".
• Matthew Bowman, "Mormonism", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History (accessible via Wikipedia Library), March 3, 2016: this encyclopedia entry reports that during the latter twentieth century, the evangelical countercult movement [...] assailed Mormonism (and other faiths, like Christian Science and the Jehovah’s Witnesses) as un-Christian cults.

For clarity since this sometimes gets vexed in this article: the thesis of these sources isn't 'Mormons are not Christians' but 'certain Christians in certain historical contexts have regarded Mormons as not being Christians'. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I should have also pointed out in the edit summary that the points made in that edit already do exist in the article, particularly in this section. The inclusion there seems more natural than where the IP had put it and is more consistent with WP:CRITICISM. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. I didn't realize this was already covered in that section. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Modern Practice of Polygamy through Sealing

I have a question for someone who understands this topic. My understanding is that a man can be sealed to more than one woman at a time. For example, a man might divorce a wife then marry another one and be sealed to both women in the temple. How is this not practicing polygamy? I understand that the church only allows one man married to one woman at a time, but they can be sealed to previous spouses if the parties agree to that. This would mean that in the celestial kingdom, a man would have two wives (or more than two). So explain to me how this is not practicing a form of spiritual polygamy? 24.21.161.89 (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I am going to add a section about the practice of polygamous sealings to the main article in few days or so if I don't hear back from editors on this topic. There are voluminous secondary sources which discuss the LDS church still practicing polygamy in the afterlife by sealing multiple women to a single man.24.21.161.89 (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there might be an issue with WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH, depending on the sources. Such text may be more appropriate at Sealing (Mormonism). A similar issue came up over at Second Manifesto#Church's "public" attitude, where the disputed text extrapolated from sources describing the policy to imply the Church had distinct public and non-public teachings regarding polygamy. So again, depends on the sources.

Personally, I think the issue is a lot more complex. For example, a deceased woman may be sealed to all deceased men (and living men depending on the situation) to whom she was married in life. In the situation you mentioned above, the man would need approval from the First Presidency even if the first sealing was cancelled to be sealed again. Also, in that situation if the first sealing were not cancelled, the first wife would not be required to be married to the husband in the celestial kingdom if she didn't want to be. The sealing cannot override agency in LDS theology. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds complex and requires church approval. However, what you describe is still a form of polygamy, but not certain the term "polygamy" applies here as it is understood to be one man and multiple women. Sounds like both polygamy and polyandry are associated with this practice. I will go and research these sources and thanks for adding some insight into the matter. I will propose edits here for discussion before placing them into the proper article. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I found this source in your previous discussionthis SLTrib article. It seems relevant to our discussion, and does tend to suggest that multiple sealings of wives to one man is fairly common practice, since both Russell Nelson and Dallin Oaks are both sealed to multiple women. The Source also plainly calls this sealing practice "polygamy". But I still struggle with using that term because the church plainly states it does not allow polygamous marriages. So I guess the catch here to avoid the pitfall of original research to claim this practice is "spiritual polygamy" when in fact it's a multiple sealing of sorts. So I agree with you that WP:SYNTH is a problem here, even though the source claims this is a form of polygamy. The term "multiple sealings" is more accurate but unfortunately the sources don't back that up or use that term. I will look into other multiple sealing sources, then propose something along those lines in terms of content. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I've moved the material down to the criticism/controversy subsection about polygamy as the lede should summarize the high level points of the body and not include material not found in the body. I've also trimmed information that was not found in the cited article - such as information about agency and afterlife. Also, the statement about Oaks and Nelson seems superfluous and unnecessary and the newspaper article says they were married but doesn't indicate if they were sealed (prior to 2021, it was possible to married in the temple for time only, ie not sealed). I do believe Nelson and Watson were sealed when they married, but again I don't think it is germane to the point. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you go back to the article and accept my last edit. You had two ref tags back to back and it generated an error so I fixed it. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, whether Nelson and Oaks are sealed to multiple women would seem germane since they are high ranking church leaders who are expected to set an example for other church members. I agree with everything you did except that part of the edit. They lead by example, and the source clearly states they are sealed to multiple women. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The name of the Church

"The church's official name refers to Jesus Christ as its leader and founder of the Church, to the conversion of the faithful, or saints, to the church in the last dispensation — hence the reference to the "latter-day." The term "saints" is the same denomination used at the time of Jesus Christ in the New Testament." Someone is keeping deleting this phrase in the article. Lennyonwiki (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe the section on "Name and other entities" explains the name pretty well, but you can look at that section to see if it needs further clarification from your edit. I would, however, recommend reading MOS:LDS and past discussions on this talk page as it has come up frequently. I don't see you adding anything that hasn't already been discussed, but it is worth reviewing. Is the "Mormon Church" or "LDS Church" wrong? Well, it is not the full correct name, but it is often used and the consensus on Wikipedia is to use the term LDS Church in articles about the Church. Bahooka (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's not "wrong" and that's okay, but that section about the name of the Church might be acceptable in the first paragraph. It is just a brief explanation about the name of the Church. Because it makes it easier for the reader to understand before delving into the full article. I ask you to consider this small change :) Lennyonwiki (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Assuming you're talking about this edit. Well, it has a lot of problems, but a big one is that it's just not appropriate for the second sentence of an encyclopedia article.

The church's official name refers to Jesus Christ...

That goes without saying.

...as its leader and founder of the Church

There are WP:NPOV problems with calling Jesus the "founder" of a church that was formed 1800 years after his death.

And from there it quickly goes too far into the weeds for the second sentence of an encyclopedia article. ~Awilley (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

No, not this edit. This one is wrong. Maybe I can change the phrase to "According to the Church doctrine, the church's official name refers to Jesus Christ as its leader and founder of the Church, to the conversion of the faithful, or "saints", to the church in the last dispensation — hence the reference to the "latter-day." The term "saints" is the same denomination used at the time of Jesus Christ in the New Testament."

So the first paragraph would like this: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is a restorationist, nontrinitarian Christian denomination. According to Church doctrine, the church's official name refers to Jesus Christ as its leader and founder of the Church, to the conversion of the faithful, or "saints", to the church in the last dispensation – hence the reference to the "latter-days." The term “saints” is the same denomination used at the time of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. The church is headquartered in the United States in Salt Lake City, Utah and (...)" Lennyonwiki (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That helps with the WP:NPOV problem, but it's still not relevant enough to this article to have that kind of detail in the 2nd sentence. This article a high level article about the organization, not a detailed article about the name of the organization. Trying to define what "saint" means is not a good use of space in the Lead section. ~Awilley (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)