Talk:Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 2

message: :I wonder, because I don't know. I know little about Latter Day Saints, and searching for side-view I've read this page. I can't say that now I know more. Most of the page is written from definitely LDS position with underlying feeling like "They all are slandering against us." No info. Period. While it maybe a crude compariton, but take a look at the page about Holocaust denial critics, it is structured in blocks like "deniers say -- critics say to that -- deniers then reply". This page have the third section only. 
:Hell, it even does not mention that critics are accusing for decades the founder of the movement in plaguiarism from some novel.
You are confusing the term criticism with criticizing, as many editors are. Criticism is an approach of study - taking a "critical approach." Criticism as you are thinking - "critics" are better explained in Anti-Mormonism. As a scholar, I may take a criticism approach in my studies, however, I am not criticizing or disagreeing with the LDS Church. This article is a blend of items, and really needs to be cleaned up. But for starters, that's the definition. -Visorstuff 18:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this all about? 

message: This article (and some others) mention the gramatical and punctuation changes in the Book of Mormon between printings.  It would be good to make a good article detailing these changes so that said article can be referenced directly. Val42 15:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good idea.  The Jade Knight 20:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes in Book of Mormon

message: Comments for, against, or otherwise touching on the proposed merger with Anti-Mormonism:
=== Support ===
#Hmm, are we straw polling this? That's a good idea. In that case, Support. I think calling these "very, very different topics" isn't accurate (wow, first time I've disagreed with Visor). You're absolutely right in saying that criticizing the Church does not make one an anti-Mormon, but the terms aren't the polar opposites that you're making them out to be. I'd prefer the merge be from the Anti page into the Criticism one; there's already an existing section which could be expanded upon and cleaned up. While obnoxious, hostile, and usually irrational, I think that very few modern anti-Mormons (which can be a very subjective label) would call their goal "destroy[ing] Mormonism"; in their own, twisted way, they're trying to proselytize.
#:In a large part, my concerns revolve around the term itself, as it's one really only used by Latter-day Saints, and often very subjectively. From my experience, the term anti-Mormon is loosely tossed around by Church members to describe nearly anyone who takes an active, critical stance towards the Church. I've had the labeled applied to myself before, but I've never gone around picketing, or waving garments, or had dinner parties with Ed Decker. All the same, I've given classes and lectures before on, to use a term that I hate, "witnessing to Mormons." While the Anti article does a good job of explaining some of this, it just doesn't strike me as a separate and distinct movement, as the Anti article seems to be combining over-the-top critics (which could go in the Criticism article) and violent bigots (which would fit into either the main CoJCoLDS article or, alternatively, a new Persecution article). Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 19:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just re-read the intros to both articles. How could they be clearer? -Visorstuff 22:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger with Anti-Mormonism 

message: #Hmm, are we straw polling this? That's a good idea. In that case, Support. I think calling these "very, very different topics" isn't accurate (wow, first time I've disagreed with Visor). You're absolutely right in saying that criticizing the Church does not make one an anti-Mormon, but the terms aren't the polar opposites that you're making them out to be. I'd prefer the merge be from the Anti page into the Criticism one; there's already an existing section which could be expanded upon and cleaned up. While obnoxious, hostile, and usually irrational, I think that very few modern anti-Mormons (which can be a very subjective label) would call their goal "destroy[ing] Mormonism"; in their own, twisted way, they're trying to proselytize.
#:In a large part, my concerns revolve around the term itself, as it's one really only used by Latter-day Saints, and often very subjectively. From my experience, the term anti-Mormon is loosely tossed around by Church members to describe nearly anyone who takes an active, critical stance towards the Church. I've had the labeled applied to myself before, but I've never gone around picketing, or waving garments, or had dinner parties with Ed Decker. All the same, I've given classes and lectures before on, to use a term that I hate, "witnessing to Mormons." While the Anti article does a good job of explaining some of this, it just doesn't strike me as a separate and distinct movement, as the Anti article seems to be combining over-the-top critics (which could go in the Criticism article) and violent bigots (which would fit into either the main CoJCoLDS article or, alternatively, a new Persecution article). Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 19:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just re-read the intros to both articles. How could they be clearer? -Visorstuff 22:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: #Oppose - These two articles cover different subjects. "Criticism of Mormonism" is intended to cover reasoned arguments over aspects of church doctrine and history, of the type that believing members might discuss with each other outside a church meeting setting; while "Anti-Mormonism" is intended to cover people and movements who work as activists against the church, typically with unreasonable criticisms that ignore actual facts of church history and doctrine. There's bound to be an intermediary spectrum where people might reasonably disagree about which side of that divide a particular subject falls on, but the two areas are still sufficiently different and binodal to be more fittingly addressed in their own entries. And maybe with a disambiguation-like note at the top of each explaining that distinction. - Reaverdrop 19:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: Okay, merging is clearly a losing battle, so I've pulled the tags. I'm not settled with how the articles stand, though. It seems like the general concept is that "Anti-Mormons are like other critics of the Church, but angrier." There's a few key differences outlined in the Criticism article, mostly addressing logical fallicies made by some of the Anti camp (although it starts to wander into apologetics, which isn't appropriate for WP), but I'm not seeing enough objective descriptions here. Some sections, such as the "Caustive factors" part from the Anti article, are largely based upon speculation. The pro-LDS stance of the articles isn't too hard to pick up on, and while I certainly don't look upon the antics of Antis with any favor whatsoever, I'm concerned about POV issues.
I'm going to take a shot at cleaning these up a little in the next couple of days. I'd appreciate some feedback and input on what's working and what isn't, and, of course, welcome others to join in. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 08:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yeah, I know that a cleanup effort was just underway, so no need to point out my missing it. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 08:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From merger to revision

message: ===Seminars to counter Mormon teachings===  
LDS missionaries routinely present their message to believing Christians, encouraging them to convert to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To many, this is viewed as an attack on mainstream Christian beliefs. Partly in response to this, many organizations who disagree with the LDS teachings hold seminars at mainstream Christian churches to highlight differences between the Church and mainstream Christianity, and to offer the mainstream Christian viewpoint on these differences.   
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the fourth largest denomination in the United States. Many converts are derived from the 50,000+ missionary force among other existing faiths. This has led to misunderstanding, occasional slander, and a general mistrust on both sides. A recent reconciliation of sorts demonstrates some progress in mending fences between Mormons and their detractors.   
For the first time in 105 years, non-Mormons mounted the pulpit at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City on Nov. 4, 2004. The event, dubbed an "Evening of Friendship," was organized by Standing Together, a network of 100 evangelical churches trying to improve relations with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In what the Deseret News referred to as "stunningly candid" comments, Fuller Theological Seminary president . Richard J. Mouw apologized to Mormons for evangelicals' tendency to distort the truth about Latter-day Saints' beliefs. "Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against you," Mouw said. The speech is making the rounds among surprised and generally pleased evangelical and Mormon groups. Portions of his remarks are printed below.   
"It is difficult for me to find adequate words to express how thrilled I am to be here this evening. Here we are, evangelical Protestants and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, gathered together in this Salt Lake Tabernacle, for an event that is described as “An Evening of Friendship.” I am not being melodramatic when I say that this is surely an historic occasion. To be sure, there have long been friendships between some evangelicals and some LDS folks. But they have not appeared on the public radar screen. Our public relations between our two communities have been—to put it mildly—decidedly unfriendly. From the very beginning, when Joseph Smith organized his church in 1830, my evangelical forebears hurled angry accusations and vehement denunciations at the Mormon community—a practice that continues from some evangelical quarters even into this present day. And I think it is fair to say that some Mormons have on occasion responded in kind. Friendship with each other has not come easily for our two communities.   
But in recent times things have begun to change. Evangelicals and Mormons have worked together on important matters of public morality. Here in Utah, the Standing Together ministry has been willing to take some considerable risks in countering the more aggressive and disruptive evangelical attacks against the LDS church...    
On a personal level, over the past half-dozen years I have been a member of a small group of evangelical scholars who have been engaged in lengthy closed-door discussions about spiritual and theological matters with a small group of our LDS counterparts. We have not been afraid to argue strenuously with each other, but our arguments have been conducted in a sincere desire genuinely to understand each other—and in the process we have formed some deep bonds of friendship. I know that I have learned much in this continuing dialogue, and I am now convinced that we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening: we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you. We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe.   
We have made much of the need to provide you with a strong defense of traditional Christian convictions, regularly quoting the Apostle Peter’s mandate that we present to people like you a reasoned account of the hope that lies with in us—but we have not been careful to follow the same Apostle’s counsel that immediately follows that mandate, when he tells us that we must always make our case with “gentleness and reverence” toward those with whom we are speaking. Indeed, we have even on occasion demonized you, weaving conspiracy theories about what the LDS community is “really” trying to accomplish in the world. And even at our best, we have—and this is true of both of our communities—we have talked past each other, setting forth oversimplified and distorted accounts of what the other group believes.   
I have formed some wonderful friendships with Mormons in the past few years. These friends have helped me to see the ways in which I have often misinterpreted Mormon thought. To be sure, as a result of those conversations I also remained convinced that there are very real issues of disagreement between us—and that some of these issues are matters of eternal significance. But we can now discuss these topics as friends And tonight many more of our friends have come together in this place for a very public and large-scale “Evening of Friendship.” God be praised! In just a month and a half we will greet the year 2005, which marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Joseph Smith. During this year there will be many occasions to pay special attention to Joseph’s life and teachings, and I hope many in the evangelical community will take part in those events. But this evening we are not here to talk about Joseph Smith, but   
- about the One whose birth we will celebrate again just before the bicentennial year of Joseph’s birth makes its appearance. This is the One about whose birth we sing—in words, I should add, that many of us love to hear sung by that great choir that sings these words in this Tabernacle—“the hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight.”   
What a wonderful thing it is that we can meet together to talk about the Lord Jesus and about who he is and what he has done on our behalf. There is much here to talk about.    
I personally take great encouragement from words that Joseph Smith uttered on the occasion of the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in April of 1830: “we know,” Joseph said, “that all men must repent and believe on the name of Jesus Christ, and worship the Father in his name, and endure in faith on his name to the end, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.” And then he added: “And we know that justification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true, and we know also that sanctification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true, to all those who love and serve God with all their mights, minds, and strength.” I greet you this evening in that spirit—as one who wants more than anything else to love and serve God with all my might, mind and strength, in the power made available by the amazing grace that sent the Lord Jesus to Bethlehem’s manger, and to the Garden of Gethsemane, and to the Cross of Calvary, where he shed his blood to pay the debt of our sin—a debt that we could never pay on our own. This is the spirit in which Ravi Zacharias is going to speak to us this evening—the spirit of devotion to the One whose name is above every name, the One who alone is mighty to save, and before whom someday every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that he is Lord to the glory of the Father. May this wonderful “Evening of Friendship” point us all to that great day. Thank you and God bless you."   
The Jade Knight 07:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text deleted by Stylemaas 

message: The term anti-Mormon, when used by Mormons, generally refers to those criticisms of Mormonism that are believed to be based upon prejudice and doctrinal misrepresentation.  Unfortunately, it may also be misused by Mormons to describe all critics of Mormonism.  Some of the techniques alleged to be common in anti-Mormon writings include:
===Fabricated References===
The Book of Mormon is divided into books, chapters, and verses, and references to passages are similar in style to biblical references.  Many anti-Mormon articles use page numbers, which vary between editions.  These non-standard references, whilst often innocent, are unhelpful, since they make it harder to check the source.
However, more serious allegations are leveled at anti-Mormons.  In many cases, references are made to earlier editions, an action that is seen by many Mormons as being underhanded.  This view is solidified by the existence of totally fabricated quotations, with the cited passages not actually being present. Mormons also attack references which, although valid, fail to substantiate the points being made.  In other cases, passages have been taken out of context or combined, in order to give a different meaning than that of the original text.  Because scriptural interpretation is already an area of ambiguity and disagreement among Christians in general, the the last two views are somewhat more difficult to prove.
Another method used by critics is to claim that there have been a massive number of alterations to the Book of Mormon since the original edition which changed the doctrines presented therein.  That a number of changes have been made to the original text is not disputed.  Where Mormons and their critics disagree, however, regards whether these changes constitute a significant shift in meaning. Most of these differences occured between the first 1830 edition and the edition published a decade later, and most Latter Day Saints consider these to be merely cosmetic in nature (i.e., corrections to grammar, punctuation, and printers' errors).  The original first printing run of the Book of Mormon itself contained a number of these corrections, caught in proofreading of printed galleys (some of which were still used in bound and distributed copies, due to economic factors).  Many critics argue that the changes were, however, theologically-motivated, and included modifications aimed at maintaining internal consistency. 
Critics also make claims based on the difference between common usage of certain words in 1830 and today.  One verse refers to a group of people being "made white and delightsome" in the early editions, and the current edition reads "pure and delightsome."  The use of "white" to mean "pure" was common in 1830, but not in modern times, so this can potentially be justified. On the other hand, updating a text in this manner may be considered a form of translation, and critics see it as somewhat deceitful update the text therefor.
===Use of Secondary Sources===
A number of anti-Mormon documents were published during the LDS church's early years. Many of these contained unsubstantiated claims that often contradict each other as well as contradicting accepted  facts. Many modern-day anti-Mormon articles cite these secondary sources without attempting to validate their accuracy. This is followed by later scholars quoting the previous works as if they were widely accepted, when their accuracy is often questionable. The result is a large body of anti-Mormon literature that is based upon itself, with little verifiable details.
===Sensationalized exaggeration===
Some critics take several points of Mormon doctrine, and then exaggerate and/or extend the doctrine, stating their conclusions using phrasing that is not found in Mormonism, and claiming that "most Mormons" believe this extreme case. In many cases, the "conclusion" they arrive at isn't believed by any Mormons, let alone most Mormons.  One variant of this approach is to use modified statements that are similar to, but don't accurately describe Mormon doctrine.  Another variant is to use speculative positions that some Mormons believe, but about which the Mormon Church has not issued any formal position.  Critics of Latter Day Saint beliefs, however, may argue that some of these latter positions represent Mormon beliefs accurately.
===Bait and Switch===
A common technique used by critics is similar to the "bait and switch" technique of promising one thing and producing something different.  An example of this is the claim that Mormons believe that a prophet named Amulek claimed to be infallible.  They will then quote a portion of Alma 11:21: "I shall say nothing which is contrary to the Spirit of the Lord."  
By telling the reader (or listener) what they will see, they have predisposed the reader to interpret the passage in a way that conforms to the initial claim.  
In reality, the situation covered by this passage is similar to that in Numbers 23, where Balak asked Balaam to curse the Israelites, to which Balaam replied that he could only say what the Lord told him to say.  
In Alma 11, a false preacher (Zeezrom) is trying to get Amulek to contradict himself.  Zeezrom asks Amulek to answer some questions, to which Amulek replies: "Yea, if it be according to the Spirit of the Lord, which is in me; for I shall say nothing which is contrary to the Spirit of the Lord." (Alma 11:23).
===Secret Teachings===
One of the most difficult techniques to counter is the belief that there are "secret teachings" that "normal" Mormons aren't told.  According to this claim, at some point up the church hierarchy, leaders hold radically different beliefs to those that are taught to people further down in the hierarchy.  According to this theory, the wholesome "public teachings" are used to get people to join the Mormon church.  This argument is often used in conjuction with a previous allegation that is shown to be incorrect. Supposedly, the claim is believed by the higher leaders, but not known by the general membership. Sometimes this claim is made by people claiming to be former mormons who did learn these "secret teachings" in a Mormon temple.
Using this technique, authors can make spectacular claims about what Mormons "really believe".  When a member says they don't believe that, the response is generally that they aren't high enough in the church to know what the leaders "really believe".  It is never explained at what point these "secret teachings" are revealed to leaders as they ascend the hierarchy, and no cases exposing this practice are provided.
Since the Mormon Church doesn't have paid local leaders, and since the local units have considerable autonomy, many Mormons have trouble understanding how others can believe this theory.  Nevertheless, this is a popular method of deflecting any criticism of their original claims.
Ceremonies held in LDS temples are seen by the devout as sacred, and are not discussed publicly. This has led to many lurid and unfounded claims, which Mormons are reluctant to rebut, however inaccurate they might be.
===Disputed extrapolation===
Often, anti-Mormons will take certain statements or doctrines of the church and combine them to form new statements that are definitely not doctrine. One such example of an anti-Mormon claim that is not LDS church doctrine is: "Mormonism teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had sexual intercourse with God." This is a disputed extrapolation from statements such as: (1) Mormons believe that Jesus is the literal Son of God; (2) God the Father has a physical body; and (3) Brigham Young stated that Jesus was conceived by natural means (the church takes the stance that "miracles" cannot violate the laws of science but can seem miraculous because current knowledge of the universe is limited).
:If there's anything here that can be salvaged and made to fit WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, have at it.  A.J.A. 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, this is a good idea. I'd hate to see it simply discarded, but it has a long way to go before it can remotely be called objective. Epsiloon 04:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Mormonism 

message: Often, anti-Mormons will take certain statements or doctrines of the church and combine them to form new statements that are definitely not doctrine. One such example of an anti-Mormon claim that is not LDS church doctrine is: "Mormonism teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had sexual intercourse with God." This is a disputed extrapolation from statements such as: (1) Mormons believe that Jesus is the literal Son of God; (2) God the Father has a physical body; and (3) Brigham Young stated that Jesus was conceived by natural means (the church takes the stance that "miracles" cannot violate the laws of science but can seem miraculous because current knowledge of the universe is limited).
:If there's anything here that can be salvaged and made to fit WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, have at it.  A.J.A. 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, this is a good idea. I'd hate to see it simply discarded, but it has a long way to go before it can remotely be called objective. Epsiloon 04:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed extrapolation

message: Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of Mormonism, taught widely that all of the Christian teachers of the day were in error and had departed from the true Christian faith. He was vigorously pursued by detractors from the time he recounted his First Vision and frequently engaged in conflicts with the surrounding society.
Conflict between Mormons and their critics or opponents was frequently vehement and violent. On October 27, 1838 Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs signed an executive order (known as the "Extermination Order") instructing the general of the state militia that, "The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary, for the public peace-their outrages are beyond all description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so, to any extent you may consider necessary." This executive order was rescinded by Governor Christopher S. Bond on June 25, 1976, over 137 years later, primarily because it violated First Amendment rights.  The Extermination Order is considered to have been factor in the Mountain Meadows Massacre nearly 20 years later.
After fleeing Missouri, Smith and the Mormons settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, where he became mayor and had a Mormon-dominated town council. In Nauvoo Smith secretly began the practice of polygamy, which was exposed by the first and only edition of the  Nauvoo Expositor. Smith illegally ordered that the paper be shut down and the press destroyed. Smith was killed during the backlash. Some have alleged that Thomas Ford, then governor of Illinois, may have been complicit. These events have been one of the subjects of criticism regarding the Mormon record on free speech, as well as polygamy.
Following the assassination of Smith, most Latter Day Saints (led by Brigham Young) fled Nauvoo in 1846 due to increasingly violent conflict. They eventually settled in what was then part of Mexico (now Utah) to organize a separate "country", the State of Deseret. Conflict with non-Mormons was also a factor in groups of Mormons leaving England to join other Mormons in the United States.  These individuals formed the bulk of what is commonly referred to as the "mainstream", "Utah" or "Brighamite" LDS church.
In Utah, a group of Mormons, along with Paiute Indians, committed the Mountain Meadows massacre, in which a wagon train passing through southern Utah was attacked and most members of the train killed.  It is commonly claimed that the murders were carried out at the command of Young, although documents show that Young sent specific orders to let the train pass unhindered. Critics allege that the LDS church covered up many of the details of the attack, and it has been criticized widely in the United States for this.
In Utah, the Mormon practice of polygamy or plural marriage was openly practiced for the first time. Plural marriage generated significant criticism throughout the United States, and the practice was ended by the mainstream LDS church following the Manifesto of 1890. Many Mormons did not want to discard this practice, and the practice allegedly continued secretly into the 20th century. After the new policy began being enforced with excommunications, diehard polygamists started various sects which are commonly referred to as "fundamentalist Mormons".
Mormons have also been criticized for their political stances; one source of conflict in Missouri in the 1830s was the issue of slavery (Joseph Smith was an abolitionist).  Today, Utah is firmly Republican politically, and this combined with the religious focus of most Mormons has given rise to modern criticisms.
Early Mormon leaders described dark skin as a curse, both for black people and Native Americans (see Lamanite), and as late as 1978 blacks were excluded from the priesthood. (see also Blacks and Mormonism)
:As I said above, the only parts worth saving are the ones about plural marriage and racism. I've realized it makes more sense to have a section called "Criticism of Mormon practices", with subsections for past and current practices. I'm moving this back here for now.  A.J.A. 21:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historic criticism

message: The following is a quote from the current article:
:Another frequent topic of criticism, especially among evangelicals, is the basis of salvation, which Mormons hold to be both grace and works
Many Christians reject anything like this thinking. For example, in an article not specifically directed against Mormonism, John F. MacArthur said:
The first paragraph is not altogether correct.  What Mormons believe is that in the end it is only through the grace of Christ that one is saved.  However, to be a disciple one must follow the teachings of Christ; faith without works is dead.  I would tread very carefully here because of the majority of Christian religions support the faith and works concept.  Roman Catholics' (by far the greatest majority of Christains in the worlds making up more than 50% of Christians) view of faith and works is very close to that upheld by the Mormons.  A compromise might be to say, "Some Christians believe solely in grace...).  As the second paragraph currently reads, it is misleading and does not fit with the reality of the Christian world.  Storm Rider (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you Storm Rider, I think that when a criticism of Mormonism is dealt with in this article that the source of the criticism is provided as well. To say Christians criticize Mormonism and to leave it at that without clarifying who would make the criticism (i.e., Evangelicals, Greek Orthodox, Catholics, etc) implies not only is the criticism true but that all Christian denominations and faiths agree with the criticism. This may confuse Wikipedia's users. Roman Catholics do believe in a doctrine that combines "faith and works" for salvation. I agree with your compromise, and would add: "Some Christians believe solely in grace, and criticize Mormonism which teaches that salvation is through faith as well as works. Edward Lalone 16:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Faith and Works

message: Our current draft definition of "criticism of Mormonism" is:
:"...an all-encompassing term referring to critical scrutiny of, or disagreement with, Mormon beliefs or practices, with reasons ranging from academic interest, to religious motivations, to outright prejudice."
Tijuana Brass was the one to suggest changing "scrutiny of" to "critical scrutiny of". His concern was that without the word "critical", pro-Mormon groups such as FARMS might be included by the definition.
My own opinion is that the qualification is unnecessary. As far as I can see, FARMS begins every investigation with the premise that the Book of Mormon is infallible, and I don't think that qualifies as scrutiny of any sort, let alone critical.
Of course, I'd be quite happy to revise my opinion of FARMS if there is reason to do so. Is there? Epsiloon 09:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps FARMS is a bad example.  The question is, would you want a pro-Mormon organization that examined doctrinal issues included in the definition?  Or should the definition be limited to those who disagree with the Church's position? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition should definately exclude scrutiny of Mormonism that is not critical and be limited to those who disagree with Mormonism. Edward Lalone 16:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Scrutiny by definition means to study or examine and I believe that is what FARMS, and other such organizations hope to accomplish. FARMS and other such organizations place the practices, doctrines and beliefs of Mormonism under the microscope. Their intent may be positive and apologetic but nevertheless they place Mormonism under scrutiny. It's important that people who examine or study Mormonism are not classified as being critical of Mormonism. I think the term "critical scrutiny" is appropriate. FARMS may very well start out with the assumption that the Book of Mormon is true and go from there in investigating Mormonism while others may start out with the belief that the Book of Mormon is not true and investigate from that assumption but both are investigating, examining, studying and placing Mormonism under scrutiny. The nature of FARMS, or our personal opinions about the organization are irrelevent in terms of this article. The article should not cause someone to believe something which is not true (i.e., FARMS is critical of the Mormonism because it places Mormonism under scrutiny). Edward Lalone 16:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FARMS and criticism 

message: First, I finally replaced the intro with the ner version. I didn't see anymore work on it and decided it would be better to put it in than let it go to waste.
Next, some POV issues. Someone decided the following was appropriate:
:All Mormons may become co-inheritors through Christ and inherit all that he was promised in a process called "Exaltation".
I removed the word "personage". I've never seen a non-Mormon use it.
Also much of the DNA section was a thinly-disguised apologetic.  A.J.A. 23:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping on track 

message: I have never heard that I would need to call my wife to me?  The LDS teaches that every person that has ever lived will have all ordinances required for exaltation done by themselves or done for them.  At no time have I been taught or taught anyone else that a man will call his wife to him as doctrine.  It may have been said by someone, but it certainly is not doctrine.  Let's try and get the doctrine correct.  Criticism is only worthwhile if it is based in reality; if it criticizes a falsehood it is worthless and no longer criticisim.  Storm Rider (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Call their wifes to them?

message: We have stated this many times in the past, but it bears talking about again.  Within Mormonism are many different churches with different theology and doctrines.  What they have in common is their evolution from the church set up through Joseph Smith.  Many of the criticisms are being focused on the LDS theology, doctrines, and beliefs; however, they are being termed Mormonism.  This is incorrect and this article is not appropriate for those criticisms.  This article is about Mormonism in general.  I suppose that we could identify which criticisms apply to which church as one solution.  Of course another would be to direct specific criticisms to the respective pages.  Thoughts?  Storm Rider (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LDS Theology and Mormonism: different things