# Talk:Mormons

In this[1] edit, ChristensenMJ changed the text to say members are "encouraged" to meet to discuss tithes. This is not what the source says, so the text fails WP:V. ChristensenMJ: have you an explanation? Bon courage (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, Bon courage. I just believe it sounded far too mandatory or required as it was worded.  Members are certainly invited to attend, but it's not compulsory....there are certainly plenty who even pay a full tithe, but don't take the opportunity to visit with their bishop. Now, admittedly, I don't know the specific wording Bushman includes in his brief introduction to Mormonism.  However, even when the LDS Church made some adjustments to the name and its focus in August 2022, as shown [2] here, it's identified for as a time for individuals and families to enhance and teach the blessings of the voluntary contributions that comprise payment of tithes. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
It would be better to abide by WP:V, surely. Isn't editing text without have the source to hand really problematic? Bon courage (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
That is self-evident for all who engage in good faith WP editing, as you have done, and as I have done.  The question you pose also implies that these good faith editing efforts are black and white and can only be conveyed in the way an individual editor feels something should read. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I think for something to be "read" in a different way, first it must be actually read. I don't the the issue is anything to do with good/bad faith but we have a duty to make sure content is WP:Verified, in accord with core policy, no? Bon courage (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@Bon courage: For my part, the reason I removed the discussion of the interview in my edit was because it is misleading to say or imply that the bishop is the one determining if the member has paid a full tithe. The bishop does not make any inquires into the method used to calculate the tithe (is it on gross, net, pre-tax, etc). It is the church member themself who determines if the tithe is full or not. Therefore I don't think the "interview" is that significant or necessary to mention. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
The Church Handbook states that "All members are invited to meet with the bishop to: *Declare to the bishop their status as tithe payers *Ensure their contribution records are accurate." They are invited, not required. I think the new wording is an improvement and more accurate. Bahooka (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I think describing tithing interviews is getting a little too far into the weeds for this top-level article. ~Awilley (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Awilley. I think that details of tithing interviews would be better placed in Tithing in Mormonism article. Epachamo (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I may not have any proof other than me myself being a member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints but yes technically you don't "have" to meet for titing except doing so can make it so you are unable to receive a temple recommend (this lets us enter the temple) so it can be interpreted differently BUT you do not have to pay tithing to be considered a member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints only to enter the temple 2600:1700:7790:4AD0:95C0:6931:DFAE:FB69 (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Please change:
[Since 2018, the LDS Church has emphasized a desire for its members be referred to as "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", or more simply as "Latter-day Saints".]
To:
[Since 2018, the Church has emphasized its desire to keep the name of Jesus Christ within its name even when speaking casually. This went so far as to even say "To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan."]
Here is the source for this: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng&id=p15#p15 2601:681:602:2B40:4007:E589:9DB6:6908 (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

It may be useful to modify "Since 2018, the Church..." to "Since 2018, the most popular sect..." or something similar. 2601:681:602:2B40:4007:E589:9DB6:6908 (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 Not done Your changed text removes the mention of the exact name they want (i.e. Latter-day Saints), meaning users unfamiliar with the topic won't be aware of it. Also, the lead of the article is supposed to be a quick summary of the topic. The exact motivations behind them preferring certain nomenclature is already included in detail in the Terminology section below.  ― novov (t c) 02:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
That's a load of bullcrap. The exact name we want is "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." or "Disciples of Jesus Christ".  We won't settle for any less Laissez faire fan (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
What?  No hyphen between 'Latter' and 'Day' anymore? 2601:19B:4084:1F90:61C3:4A2B:5BC3:9420 (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
no hyphen [...] No, they're too fancy now for hyphens! ☩ (Babysharkboss2) 15:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
On the official church website we still use the hyphen. It was simply a grammatical error, there is no need for judgement. Elizaplerkim (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This page repeatedly refers to members of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day Saints as "Mormons" however, it is widely known that they much prefer to be referred to by their actual name, so you might consider changing that to reflect the accurate name of the church.
 72.24.120.144 (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:LDS.There is more than one LDS denomination. Acroterion (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Hear hear Laissez faire fan (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

A bit of a rant here, TL; DR PLEASE change it to Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, it's not okay to call us Mormons.
Someone please edit this page from 'Mormons' to what we actually are. we seriously cannot keep the name as 'Mormons'. It doesn't matter if you're catholic, atheist, or whatever - it's seriously disrespectful to remove our name and give us a new one. we do not worship Mormon; we worship Jesus Christ. We do not go by Mormon. we are not Mormons. do not call us Mormons. YES! there are people who've gone by Mormons for their whole lives. their opinions do matter, but our prophet reaffirmed the words of Jesus Christ and told us that we MUST keep Jesus's name in Jesus's church. We are not Mormons because Mormon was a man.
I'm sorry I'm ranting about it but it's not okay to call us what we aren't - it's not okay to refer to us by a name that the public has adopted as a synonym for 'idiot' or 'blasphemous'  73.240.39.222 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

See the responses on this talkpage to previous threads, and please read WP:LDS for a discussion of the specific ways consensus has developed to distinguish between LDS and Mormon appellations, and where to use the specific terms, which vary considerably between individual doctrines. Please remember that this article describes more than the largest congregations. You are correct that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Community of Christ prefer the LDS appellation, but that is not universal among all followings, or even consistent within those groups. Acroterion (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I find it interesting that  the article mentions numerous times that members of the church, the largest representative contingent by far, eschew being called “Mormons” and yet the article is titled such and also continually labels them as “Mormons” throughout. That should be just as unacceptable on Wikipedia as having an article about any particular race of people using a title which that race finds offensive, mentioning in the article it is offensive, but then continuing to use the label throughout the article. Using the term because consensus warrants it is no less offensive. A term does not stop being offensive just because a majority support using it. Did we learn nothing from watching the Archie Bunkers of the world? I vote for rewording the article as much as possible so as not to offend. — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk-Email) 13:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Please read WP:LDS for context on the consensus that was developed. Acroterion (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
I did. But as I mentioned, consensus is no excuse for offensive behavior. I grew up in the southern United States in a time where the use of racist (offensive) terms were prolific. My parents claimed, “well, everybody accepts…” those terms. But I knew “everybody does it” was no excuse. Today, people go out of their way to not use offensive labels for all sorts of groups of people. Why is this instance different? The title of this article offends, and the use of the label throughout offends, a very large part of society. Consensus is no excuse. — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk-Email) 13:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Then take it up there, at a central location, and see if you can get consensus to change. Acroterion (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Also, in the introductory paragraphs of the article, it correctly states that the church has requested that members be called “ members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” , but then it incorrectly states “or Latter Day Saints” for short. In the hyperlink article referenced on CNN, which directs to the church news website, it never mentions the latter-day Saints for short. In fact, the news release states that you can use the term “members of the church” or just “members” once the name of the church has been established in the same article or discuss discussion.
latter-day Saints does the same thing as Mormons, it removes the focus away from the  Savior and that’s where the church was commanded hundreds of years ago to keep the emphasis- thanks 65.130.191.133 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
You are all wrong. The article uses "Mormon" to describe both LDS and the splintoff groups. Jayson (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)