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


### The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
In the sentence of the leading paragraphs for "may serve as missionaries", is the intent to link to the general "Missionary" article (which defines what a missionary is in general) or should it be the specific "Mormon missionary" article (which goes in detail about Mormon missionaries)? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I think so, because it’s more specific.
Future_Martian (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

“Independent reporting has found that the Church's charity organization, LDS Charities, gave a total of $177 million from 2008 to 2020.” This was not independent reporting. It’s heresay from an estranged whistleblower. If there are documents, they’ve mysteriously never been made public. Vulturdactyl (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Vulturdactyl Yet the Sydney Morning Herald was able to view the financial statements—or at least determine that PwC is their auditor—and the story was reported by the Herald, 60 Minutes, and the CBC. That looks like plenty of editorial review, regardless of whether they provided specific information on the documents. —C.Fred (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Then why aren’t the financial statements public? It was a sensational story. Of course they’re going to report it. Again, a whistleblower is not “independent reporting”. Quite the opposite. Vulturdactyl (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
I think my primary issue is that the amount of criticism on this page is not neutral or objective. Not only does it have an entire subsection on criticisms, but it has a separate page for it! Hardly seems neutral to me. Vulturdactyl (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
How is sourced criticism from reliable sources an issue? Being a neutral editor does not mean we have to represent a subject with a force balance of coverage, instead that we represent all available reliable information. glman (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
It’s not the existence of criticism it’s the ratio. I do not think other organizations have a criticisms section and a separate criticisms page. Why don’t we pull in positive stats about this church? Vulturdactyl (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
The ratio of the criticism should reflect what's published about the subject in reliable sources. A surface scan says that's probably the case in CJC articles. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
I can find stats saying from good sources saying LDS members live longer and are happier on average. Yet if I tried to add it it would surely be shot down. Wikipedia is kinda anti-religion ngl. Vulturdactyl (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Weird argument if you've never actually tried to add that... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
So should I add it then and we’ll find out? Vulturdactyl (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
You will at least get to find out whether your sources are good. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
More like I’ll get to figure out whatever the next anti-religion argument is when they inevitably scrape it, if they provide reason that is. I tried to provide important context to the shroud of turin (also religious related) page, and the reviewer blew me off without reason.
Give me some time and I’ll start our experiment. Vulturdactyl (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Done. Vulturdactyl (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back It got reverted, as predicted. To discuss “wording”. There you go. Vulturdactyl (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
@Vulturdactyl a gallup poll is exactly that. A poll. It isn’t a valid source. If you return with a reliable source, we can look into including it CreativeNightPainter (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
@Vulturdactyl Which source—CBC, CBS, or SMH—said a "whistleblower"  provided their information? —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/15/mormon-church-whistleblower-taxes-hedge-fund?utm_source=chatgpt.com Vulturdactyl (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Did you read this article before copying it from ChatGPT? It's a totally different story, nothing to do with the LDS Charities reporting. glman (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Straight from the article: '“The Mormon church will have you believe that it’s a religion that dabbles in business, but the evidence clearly shows that they are a business dabbling in religion,” said former Mormon and whistleblower Ryan McKnight.'
I have a hard time believing this man could be impartial. The church was also sued twice over information related to this financial report and easily won both. Vulturdactyl (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
To clarify this came from the article cited in the article on the wikipedia page about where the information came form. Vulturdactyl (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Which article? glman (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Since the guardian has had a lot of issues involving ChatGPT, and your link literally says “ChatGPT” in it, I would say you need a different source. CreativeNightPainter (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

If you click on the Christian description link within this article, it defines Christianity as being monotheistic. The monotheism article differentiates monotheism from monolatrism. Mormons believe in multiple gods as shown in multiple articles here about the church of jesus christ and latter day saints but only worship one, which makes them monolatristic, which means they are not monotheistic which would make them non-Christian. There is a logical inconsistency here. 134.204.180.68 (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@134.204.180.68 They literally are monotheistic 😂 69.233.97.0 (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree, and in addition to the other beliefs cited in the article, it seems hard to say that the LDS Church is actually Christian. To say that the persons of the Trinity are "distinct beings" basically removes you from Trinitarianism, which the article correctly cites, but it also removes you from Christianity. Additionally, to say that God the Father has a fleshly body and that only the Spirit is immaterial contradicts Christian teaching from the Holy Bible. I believe it would be more appropriate to add some qualification to their "Christian" status as stated in this article. The fact an article is dedicated to this dispute on Mormonism's status as it relates to Christianity (cf. Mormonism and Nicene Christianity) should give us pause for thought when declaring in the intro that they are "a nontrinitarian restorationist Christian denomination..."
Their claim to be a Christian denomination does not per se make them one, particularly when there exist baptismal and creedal disputes between them and the main Christian churches. Perhaps one day these will be settled more definitively, however, for the time being it would seem prudent to remove or qualify statements in this article relating to the LDS Church being called Christian. 68.115.217.66 (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Christianity is a religion that follows Christ Jesus and His teachings, the Church has a nontrinitarian viewpoint on Christ, but that doesn't eliminate them from Christianity as they do follow the teachings of Christ Jesus. The Church could be described as having monolatry doctrine. It may be helpful their official doctrine about the Godhead here. Knotsworth (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Nontrinitarianism is something some Christian denominations have, even if it's distinctly different from Nicene Christianity. I know this because it's something that comes up in the Jehovah's Witness topic area as well. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if this is WP:LDSMOS thing or not, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have requested to be called "the Church" (note the capital "C") is this something we should take into account? Knotsworth (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

See WP:LDSMOS Talk Page for more information. Knotsworth (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)