Talk:Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 1

message: __TOC__
Although there may be other pages that include information about anti-Mormonism, I think it merits a separate page. So, please don't delete this page and redirect it without careful consideration.
I have found some anti-Mormon bias on other pages that discuss aspects of Mormonism. I strove to make my definition of anti-Mormonism as neutral as possible. Please don't turn this page into a debating ground on the merits or lack thereof in Mormon philosophies. Please make your comments as fair, and non-inflammatory as possible.
----
Not 12 hours after I started this page I received the following link by e-mail.
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/antis/200304.html
I had originally tried to differentiate anti-Mormonism from the likes of anti-Semitism but there are obviously some anti-Mormons who do deserve to be put in the same category as anti-Semites. I rewrote the introduction to this page accordingly. Rsduhamel 04:26, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

message: There has been a lot of discussion about the rewriting of this article.  What about if we just do it?  Here's another proposal:
* Introduction should be the current last-two paragraphs.
* Keep the historical anti-mormonism.  I think that we can all agree on this part.
* Keep the first three paragraphs of "Doctrinal opposition".  This is a summary with redirects.
* Keep from "Modern day opposition" onward.  I think that this is what everyone is agreeing to above.
* Delete the rest until we can figure out how to handle it.  This will immediately remove the doctrinal debate and increase the quality of this page.
What do you think?  I'm proposing this as a vote.  Is the usual vote one week to reach 2/3rd of those voting voting for the proposal?  I'd like it to pass, but I won't be offended if it doesn't.  But at least be good enough to make another proposal.  I want to get something resolved.  Val42 04:24, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. We need much more detail than what you suggest. If you want to do the above as an immediate step feel free. See re-write and definition I've started at Talk:Anti-Mormonism/Rewrite; be patient with the re-write, it takes time. I'd encourage input and comments, but please rather watch and coach with the article rather than editing and opposing my thoughts before they are fleshed out (stated and written all the way through). It will make sense in the end, but I'll be using the page as a sandbox in formulating thoughts and gathering details. It will make sense and I think show Vegasbrights and a much more nuetal and accurate view in the end. Coaching is suggested, and please leave your name for discussion. In any case, my definition of Anti-Mormonism is done and needs comment. -Visorstuff 05:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's get it on

message: Does anyone have biographical information or details about Arthur Budvarson? -Visorstuff 15:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have only seen information http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/a-budvarson.html. Nereocystis 18:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arthur Budvarson

message: I left a note on Sam's user page.  Hate speech is often used to describe actions that inspire/influence others to hate a people for their race, religion, etc.  I believe that using hate speech in this context is attempting to use a much broader defnition.  I would prefer the descriptor sacrilege for the manner in which anti-Mormon demonstrators display/use the temple garment.  
It seems in today's society that "victims" desire to use very inflammatory labels to describe the people with whom they have a problem.  Love Bombing to describe fellowshiping of  religious groups, hate speech to describe offensive actions, are the two examples that come immediately to mind in the religious part of our society.  Both terms are accurate for specific types of actions, but they are used too easily and in doing so will lose their value for true examples.
I will edit the language to scarilege and hope to hear from Sam for his thoughts. Storm Rider 17:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like sacrilege better as well. Nereocystis 18:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hate Speech vs. Sacrilegious Actions 

message: Portions of the re-write draft are up on the Anti-Mormonism/Rewrite page for editing. I have not included biographies on Anti-Mormons as originally planned, but will link to their sub-pages and create a number of them. 
Please be gentle - I've exposed my thoughts, and they may not make sense, but I'm hoping for some critiques. We'll need to add in some detail from this page. I've really sweated over most words and would like to discuss 'why' somethings are worded as they are. 
I'll keep adding in content for some sections - I put in strawman in some areas, even though I have it more fleshed out on my desktop as the context was missing from my computer and would seem strange. Anyway - have at it. -Visorstuff 17:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write up for edits/wikifying

message: #Go to Opposition to Mormonism, which will redirect to Criticism of Mormonism
#Click on "Opposition to Mormonism" in "(Redirected from Opposition to Mormonism)"
#Click on "Page history"
#Click on "22:31, 12 September 2005", second history item down (I forget whether this is time zone dependent).
#Click on "Edit this page"
#Click on "Save page".
Everything is restored.
Perform similar steps for the talk page.  Redirect Criticism of Mormonism to Opposition to Mormonism. This should be done because it restores the history.
Then we can discuss whether the move should be done, using standard move techniques. Later, we can copy the Rewrite page, and reorganize the text.  Saving the history is the first step.
The only problem with this method is that it loses recent changes.  We can survive with this. Nereocystis 17:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an Admin trick we can do to merge the page histories, but it's irreversible. I think we could merge the histories of all the relevant pages into a single Anti-Mormonism article. For the talk pages, it would be better to merge them by hand, or just move them to pages such as Talk:Anti-Mormonism/Opposition to Mormonism. COGDEN 17:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple solution, saving history

message: Restore Criticism of Mormonism to Opposition to Mormonism.  Use method described in #Simple solution, saving history.  After this is done, discuss next steps.  Don't make panic move due to current circumstances. Nereocystis 18:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After we restore the history, we can discuss the best title for the page. Nereocystis 18:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another poll, restore previous state

message: From what I can see, we have 3 different topics we are discussing:
;Anti-Mormonism:Mostly hostility towards or prejudice against Mormons, though it does cover other topics.
;Mormonism and Christianity:Comparison between Mormonism and other forms of Christianity, includes Christian thoughts and criticism towards Mormon doctrines.
;Criticism of Mormonism:Analysis and judgment of Mormonism. Includes discussion of historicity of Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, for example. This category is not limited to comparisons with other forms of Christianity.
Some topics may be difficult to split up.  The historicity of the Book of Mormon does not belong in either anti-Mormonism or Mormonism and Christianity. It belongs under criticism.
Claims of restoration to the original Christian church may be difficult to place in just one category.
Criticism should not be limited to negative criticism.
Nereocystis 19:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Historicity of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham belong on the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham pages, respectively. I agree that there are three categories, but as I stated above, I don't think one of them is Criticism of Mormonism. The analysis and judgment of any aspect of Mormonism belongs on the page about that aspect of Mormonism. But I do think we should have a separate page for Mormonism and scholarship, which would cover some of the aspects of what you are referring to. COGDEN 19:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with COGDEN. I definitely disagree with Nereocystis' third point - disagreements with Mormonism is very different than Criticism of it. The historicity of the BOM does not belong under a "criticism" or opposition article but under Book of Mormon or Archaeology and the Book of Mormon or Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. The small disagreements and criticisms are generally topic-based, rather than aimed at the movement as a whole. Many pastors have issues with various church doctrines, but generally believe mormons are good Christians. Others do not and preach at General Conference waving sacred vestments around. The above is not a movement, and should be confined to the specific topics in which they are addressed and can be expounded properly. This is where you and I have disagreed in the whole thing. I do not see criticisms or opposition as a movement, as I do Anti-Mormonism. Anti-Mormonism has a history, but opposition or Criticism does not have much of a documented history as a movement. Anti-Mormon should be it's own page and the other criticisms placed where the are appropriate. We still need more editors to weigh in on the above moving of a page issue. -Visorstuff 20:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison between Anti-Mormonism, Criticism, and comparison with Christianity

message: I still think this "cut and paste" job should be deleted (and this discussion moved to the "parent" page).  If it can't be done as a "speedy" in the process of fixing the badly-done move, I'll list it on afd.  We can then discuss a concensus and correctly-performed page move, if anyone's still keen.  Alai 05:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Alai, about the cut and paste. I'll attempt to correct the cut and paste job, so that we have a rational page history, while preserving the status quo. COGDEN 18:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I've fixed the "cut and paste" move. Everything should now be as it was earlier today, except the page history of Opposition to Mormonism and its talk page are merged here. It's as if the move had been done correctly. COGDEN 18:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent job.  Now, let's undo the move. :)  Any objections?  I'm not sure we should bother with the formality of WP:RM given that the original move wasn't discussed anyway...  Alai 03:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut and paste correction

message: Would it be appropriate to include mention of Mark Twain's (critical) chapters on Mormonism from Roughing It?  It was a very popular book, and reflected a tendency of writers and reporters at the time to go to SLC to deal with the "Mormon Question" (as they called it).  Anyways is this relevant, or too obscure for the modern-day reader?  Windsagio 23:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds sensible to me, unless said material would 'fit' better in the article on the book.  Or some combination of the two, indeed.  Alai 05:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old literary Criticism?

message: Hope no-one minds.  Made one or two changes.  Mainly a bit of restructuring to make explicit the difference between Anti-Mormonism and Criticism of Mormonism which needing doing. Seems a hard article to write and make NPOV. Good luck! Marcus22 10:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructuring edit

message: As alluded to on Wikipedia:Content forking, "Criticism of X" titles are inherently non-neutral, because they present the debate one-sidedly and imply that the only discussion of a subject is negative.  See Talk:Criticism of Christianity#Rendering_this_article_neutral for the many examples of where "Criticism of X" articles have become perennial and unresolvable neutrality disputes, and a discussion of how to address this. Uncle G 03:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but as criticism goes, this is still terrible.  It reads like "Why all critics of Mormonism are wrong and evil".  I thought that articles are supposed to be sympathetic. Alienus 23:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If only you applied "I thought that articles are supposed to be sympathetic" to your edits of other Latter Day Saint movement articles. But much of this does come from when the article was called "Anti-Mormonism".  I still think that it should be renamed that.  Val42 01:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV