Talk:Anti-Mormonism/Archive 3

message: (I moved this section here from above because I think it was getting missed among the rest of the discussion, but I think it's important to the future direction of this article.)
I don't think it's beneficial in any way to group things into "true anti-Mormonism" and "not anti-Mormonism". Making an arbitrary definition like the above is useful for labeling, but not so useful for a Wikipedia entry, in my opinion. But we can, I think, show some sort of subjective scale, perhaps. I'm thinking of the "Why did my friend call that comment 'anti-Mormon'?" question.
* What are the sorts of things people call "anti-Mormon"? Why does [most?] everyone who are called "anti-Mormon" reject the term?
** People who actively try to get Mormons to leave their faith (ranging from people who use falsehoods to achieve that goal to people who "sensationalize" the truth to achieve that goal to people who just stick more or less to the facts)
** People who try to show how Mormons are not Christian
** People who write negatively about Mormonism
** People who write about Mormonism in a "religious studies" way
** People who provide "recovery" in the "support group" sense
** People who research Mormon History
** etc.
Then that opens up the article to talk about why some people call some of these "anti-Mormon" but not the others, without having to make any judgment calls on the part of Wikipedians. In other words, "criticism" and "wild inflammatory nonsense" can both be discussed on this page, and the distinction between the two can be made--rather than limiting what's on this page to "Christians are cannibals!" type diatribe. What do you think? --Dlugar 01:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is labeling useful?

message: I rewrote the Jeff Lindsay article, but it got flagged again for deletion, claiming it as a vanity page.  I admit it is a stub, but don't think it is a vanity page.  Consider voting on the issue  wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeff Lindsay - again

message: I reverted an edit today that questioned the reality of Anti-Mormonism by including the term "claimed"...this after the paragraph immediately prior explicitly stated the definition held by Mormons.  Then seeking to dispute a reference in a Mormon Encyclopedia as conflicting with NPOV.  References just need support the statement or quote in a section.  If we dispute a reputable source because it comes from a protaginist then virtually all articles would need to be marked as violating NPOV.  I strongly encourage a review of what a reference is and why they exist.  If the editor would like to provide a counter statement and reference do it, but it is strictly POV, besides demonstrating a lack of understanding of references, to label a reputable reference as not meeting the standards of NPOV.  Maybe you are attempting to state that the reference isn't reputable?  Storm Rider (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the reference is reputable for statements of facts or definitions, since it is not information from a third-party objective viewpoint. If the reference is supporting Mormon views, then it is authoritative, endorsed as official. It can't be both. Mormon authors cannot contradict the official Mormon view and keep their church employment or church standing. Anon166 17:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of Anti-Mormonism

message: In reading through the article I did not find any glaringly POV statements. The worst offender I found was actually this statement: Many non-Mormons and Exmormons reject the use of the term entirely on the grounds that the entity in question provides "valid information" and is, therefore, not "anti-Mormon" but "the truth."
The only other suggestion I have towards making this article NPOV is I would like to see the "Rejection of the Term" section given more prominence. It is a significant issue with regards to the usage of the term, but in an article this long it has become basically a footnote. The section is not lengthy nor is it vitriolic, and I think if more prominently featured would provide the article with more balance. Does anyone object to me moving it to the top of the article, to the "Use of the term" section?
Apart from the occasional poor writing, that's the only fault I can find with this article. I'd ask Anon166 to please state some concrete examples of sections he believes to be POV so that we can rewrite them. We can't change it if we don't know what's wrong with it. --Dlugar 05:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm down with moving the "rejection of the term" section to the "use of the term" section. Also, as for the wording issues below, just go ahead and fix them. --uriah923(talk) 05:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Moving "Rejection of the term" up under usage makes sense to me as well. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 12:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My Thoughts

message: (This section is just notes for which sentences/phrases I think need work to flow together with the larger whole.) --Dlugar 05:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor Writing

message: The following is the introduction to the article:
: The word anti-Mormonism is derived from the prefix "anti-," meaning "to be in opposition to," and the adjective "Mormon," denoting anything related to Mormonism. Therefore, the adjective "anti-Mormon" typically indicates anything that is perceived to be in opposition to the teachings, history, leadership, culture of, or membership in, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Typically, though, the prefix anti- is affixed to a noun, not to an adjective.  That in fact, is why so many who have been labeled "anti-Mormon" dislike the term: they assume that "Mormon" here is the noun, referring to a member of the LDS church, rather than an adjective.  I think that if a reference/citation can be given for the adjectival derivation, we can include it; otherwise we should assume the more obvious nominal derivation.
CaliforniaKid 03:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology of "Anti-Mormon"

message: Can we at least get a consensus on moving the article to the new heading?  All in favor, please put "support" below.  If not in favor, please put "reject" and explain why.  If everyone seems to support the suggestion, we will move the article.  CaliforniaKid 04:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just FYI, "anti-Mormonism" is somtimes used, as evident in this Washington Monthly article. Not by a Mormon, and in a very public and professional setting. I'm not saying I change my vote; I just thought you should be informed. --uriah923(talk) 21:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I am curious what you did to do that.  Agreeing iwth you, I simply tagged Anti-Mormon for speedy delete using Template:db-move.  Is there another way?  Only curious for my personal education. Reswobslc 21:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool, I didn't know you could do that.  I went to Wikipedia:Requested Moves and added it to a badly backlogged list of stuff for bored admins to do.  lol.  CaliforniaKid 22:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote to move article to Anti-Mormon

message: It looks like there's a dispute over the introduction. Anon166 made this change, which I changed to this. Anon166 reverted back to his version, citing "Mormon POV." I disagree, and actually think Anon166's version carries much more bias. What does everyone else think? --uriah923(talk) 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two paragraphs are pompously redundant with or without POV. By the way, why don't you remove the amateurish fluff piece Hinckley quotes, if that was your criticism, lest I be accused of being anti-Mormon again. Anon166 18:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard anyone refer to a person as anti-mormon, but I suppose some do.  Most LDS I know reserve the term anti-mormon to what they feel are dishonest claims.  While one can find some Mormons who use a more inclusive definition, I think they are in the minority.  Maybe it is more prominent in places like Utah, but the people I know use a more restrictive definition.  I feel the introduction should make this distinction clear, which is why I added words like "sometimes" and "especially". wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 22:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Its's been done. There are now 123 redirects and you will need to take care of those. Go to  here for the list. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most are done.  Criticism of Islam is protected.  I didn't touch any talk pages wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Move

message: I have just finished reading Rough Stone Rolling and it has much insight on the early church.  Most of the early opposition to the church had very little to do with doctrine or church bashing.  Most movements of the time claimed to be the only true church and everyone was pulling people this way and that with claims of the truth.  Many of the anti-mormon folks were burned in land deals, felt pressure by their new large block of neihbors who tended to make it hard for them to live independently.  It was a lot about a voting block who sympatized with Indians, could possibly be abolishionists (although the church had to sign afidavits to the contrary, to make peace with their neighbors), and were a pretty solid and intimidating group.  So it is a lot deeper than just doctrine.
I also thing there needs to be a "Credibility" section to cover outlandish claims like the church owns Marriot, and throws virgins into the Great Salt Lake from the temple, as well as the more credible research done by the Tanners.  At least give the reader a spectrum from the outlandish to those who attempt to give accurate information.  I really thing that Ed Decker's denouncement by the Tanners is critical. Bytebear 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm about 450 pages into the same book. I agree that it has excellent info, some of which I've included in this article. --uriah923(talk) 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just wish I had highlighted and annotated the book.  Now I probably have to re-read it to find all the good stuff in it. Bytebear 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Books on this topic

message: The lead section could use improvement.  Anybody wanna tackle it? From WP:LEAD
The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establish context, and characterize the terms. It should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text, and should encourage the reader to read more.
CaliforniaKid 03:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Section

message: Massimo Introvigne is most definitely NOT a Mormon, unless he's undergone some very recent conversion unknown to the Massimo Introvigne article.  He is a very strange and disturbed individual, however... AnonMoos 23:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it.  Just out of curiosity, what makes him "strange and disturbed"? CaliforniaKid 00:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He doesn't hesitate to use rather sleazy tactics to defend abuses committed by religious cults, or to slur and smear those who point out abuses committed by religious cults, and he's obsessed with vampires and pretending to be a vampire, to start with... AnonMoos 08:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AnonMoos, do you think that might be just slightly skewed, personal POV?  In reading his WIKI article, one would be hard pressed to come up with "sleazy tactics" or anything else you mentioned.  If you have evidence that he pretends to be a vampire, that should be documented in his article.  I almost think it would be better if we accused him of eating young babies or participates in black sabbaths; it would certainly not be any worse than your comments above.  :)  Storm Rider (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever -- I did not try to insert that into an article, or propose that it be inserted into an article, but was only responding to "CaliforniaKid".  I requested that the Massimo Introvigne article be updated with Vampire info long ago (see Talk:Massimo Introvigne#Vampirism), but don't really feel qualified to write that up myself... AnonMoos 09:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Massimo Introvigne a Mormon??

message: While I think we can all agree that this article needs cleanup and improvement, do you think we can remove the POV tag?  I haven't seen a whole lot of POV complaints lately, and I think most of the issues have been dealt with.
CaliforniaKid 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tempted to say yes, but I'm not sure how long it will be before somebody adds it back in. :-( wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could take a vote? I support! CaliforniaKid 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, now discuss, don't vote ;).  More seriously, let the question stand for a little bit.  If any active watchers disagree they'll chime in.  Especially if we give 'em obvious edit summaries on the talk page.  If nobody disagrees for a while, then do it.  If there is disagreement, figure out why and solve the problem, then ask again.  GRBerry 00:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, ok. No vote. <grin> CaliforniaKid 05:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the original assessment that the article needs work but it is not violating NPOV. --uriah923(talk) 13:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed: Seems pretty well in line with NPOV to me. -Porlob 20:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: This image: :Image:Manti-1999.jpg is in the section Anti-Mormon#Anti-Mormon protesters yet I don't think that it illustrates the topic - i.e. it is not an image of protesting. Thus I deleted and think it doesn't belong in the article. Can someone explain to me how this illustrates protesting? --Trödel 18:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree that it isn't appropriate, but moreso because it is clearly a posed photo of anonymous people.  It makes me wonder if they agreed to have the image released, and who these people are. If they were "generic" non-posing people, I would be less hesitant about using it. Bytebear 21:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. This photo should be removed. --Austinsimcox 13:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image - minor point 

message: I see we've been moved back to anti-Mormonism.  The editor cited the wikipedia naming conventions on adjectives, but of course "anti-Mormon" is also a noun.  The whole reason we moved this to anti-Mormon in the first place was that there was some controversy as to whether there's even any such thing as anti-Mormonism: some kind of coherent worldview or motivational schema adhered to by all anti-Mormons.  Since this has been a controversial question in the past, I'm a little miffed that the editor undertook the move without making any mention of his plans on the talk page.  I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, but please do be aware that major, potentially controversial changes should be discussed here before they are made.  CaliforniaKid 00:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved again? 

message: The new material on Sherlock Holmes is interesting.  Does it come entirely from the adherents.com source?  If not, other sources should be cited; no original reasearch allowed.  I also wonder if this one reference warrants a full subsection of its own.  Maybe it would be better in the Sherlock Holmes article.  For our purposes it should probably be pared down, unless we want to give a full dossier on other early antimo publications.  What does everyone else think?  CaliforniaKid 08:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sherlock Holmes

message: As to the section above entitled Why is there Opposition, I found some errors (or at least it seemed that way too me). As a Mormon I can tell you, we did not and do not lessen the status of Jesus Christ and God the Father. We believe that through Jesus, salvation is possible. We also do not peceive the Bible as second class scripture. We believe it to be just as important as the Book of Mormon. I don't think you meant to imply the opposite of what I just said, it just seemed that way to me. --Austinsimcox 14:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Austin, I somewhat disagree.  You have to understand what you're being compared to.  In traditional Christianity, God is infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; the entire universe is a part of his being.  While some Mormons use some of these terms (see for example Stephen Robinson's use of "omnipresent," they qualify them in ways that other Christians would not.  And there is no question that Mormonism teaches that God is finite and material.  Traditional Christianity sees all of this as a "lessening" of God's divinity.  Similar things could be said for Jesus, although I think the Mormon view of God the Father is generally more objectionable than their view of Jesus.  As for the Bible, Mormons believe that the Bible is true only insofar as it is "translated correctly," although no similar caveat is given for the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham.  It is understood also that "plain and precious" things have been removed from it, making it incomplete and in need of supplement from other sources.  Whether this makes it "second-rate scripture" is questionable, but it does diminish it noticeably from the high position it occupies in most mainstream Christian denominations.  CaliforniaKid 05:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I think you're dancing an extremely fine. Absolutely Mormons describe God as infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent (and perhaps his influence could be considered omnipresent).  Certainly the idea that Mormon's think God (or any other being for that matter) is finite is completely ridiculous.  As to the Bible, the argument is really kind of pointless, because other Christian's only accept the Old and New Testament.  I guess what I'm saying is the same argument we're using could be used to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon is considered as second-rate scripture because the D&C was produced afterwards.  It seems most of the opposition is due to a misinterpretation, misunderstanding or generalization of Mormon beliefs about the nature of deity, the definition of scripture (D&C 1:38) and the wide-reaching claims made by the church.  Effectively it claims to be the actual church organization that existed in the time of Christ, with revelation, prophets, "new" scripture, etc.  One main thing we need to keep in mind with this article is the fact that typical Anti-Mormon perceptions of Mormons (true or not) do not necessarily indicate Mormon beliefs, and we need to keep these two issues separated.  gdavies 06:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I agree. --Austinsimcox 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: gdavies, I don't think it is due to a misunderstanding of Mormon doctrine, though perhaps to a generalization of it.  It is true that many Mormons use the "omni" terms, and some who have converted from mainline churches may even mean them the way traditional Christians mean them.  However, this is a relatively recent phenomenon in Mormonism, which coincides with Pres. Benson's re-emphasis on the BoM and the rise of Mormon neo-orthodoxy.  It should also be noted that Sterling McMurrin, in his book The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion, says that because Mormon theology denies creation of the world out of nothing, it demands a "radical finitism."  In other words, the Mormon God is finite in the philosophical sense of the term. You might argue that he is infinite in some other loose way, e.g. that he has infinite knowledge or power, but even these assertions are questionable.  McMurrin's book is the gold standard in Mormon philosophy.  I don't want to unnecessarily belabor the point, but I would to point you to Bailey's essay on the subject in Dialogue: available here as a PDF.  CaliforniaKid 08:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Guys, this argument is interesting, but this is not what this article is about.  It should go in the Mormonism and Christianity article.  This article is about the phenomenon called Anti-Mormonism.  Sure debates over theology are part of it, but they don't approach the level of anti-Mormon behavior.  I think if you go this route, you will make this article go way off track.  Bytebear 19:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... unfortunately I lack the self control to not dabble in this a bit longer, as I feel it's an important concept to guide the focus of this article. As to your comments, CaliforniaKid... call it a "generalization" or a "mischaracterization" or whatever you like, it's an incorrect interpretation/understanding/representation that is at the heart of Anti-Mormonism.  Whether it's an "innocent" misunderstanding or a willful misrepresentation with the intent to defame is another issue...  As to radical finitism; McMurrin makes for good philosophy, but I don't think that this idea calls for a God as a finite being (at all).  The doctrine I believe this is referring to is the idea that the elements were already here at the time of the creation.  Certainly God the Father could have created all of this matter "from nothing" at some time before... or not, who knows, but certainly this doesn't diminish God's divinity, power, knowledge, etc.  It just contradicts the prevailing creationist notion of "ok, now!" and the world appears.  Your extrapolation of the theory of radical finitism to the nature of God may be justified by McMurrin's book, but certainly not by the statement you mentioned. As i don't have access to it right now... we'll let that lie.  However, I strongly disagree with the statement that the "omni-s" are a new concept in Mormonism.  Unless you're considering the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the acceptance of the Bible, the teachings of Joseph Smith and every other prophet of the LDS movement "recent developments"... gdavies 22:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Gdavies, you are of course welcome to your opinion.  You seem to be of a fairly "neo-orthodox" bent, which is fine with me.  Still, you should read the article I linked above.  I do agree though that this isn't the direction this article should go. CaliforniaKid 03:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to "why is there opposition" 

message: I'm not sure that the Religious Persecution template is appropriate.  This article covers aspects of religious persecution, but it is not technically an article about religious persecution.  Several of the sections describe types of opposition that cannot properly be termed persecution.  Contrast with articles like Persecution of Christians or Persecution of Muslims.  Perhaps Persecution of Mormons should be a separate article, and some of the information in the present article should be moved there.  We could then provide a link to that article in this one, which would allow us to keep this one shorter (it's a whopping 70 KB right now). CaliforniaKid 05:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the new nav template either.  It's ugly.  CaliforniaKid 05:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious Persecution?

message: The article reviews Christian bias towards Mormons but does not look at non-religious attacks on the religion, such as the South Park episode attacking the religion, and various websites that ridicule the faith based on logical grounds, not religious ones. This article seems to be very defensive, as if it was written almost entirely by Mormons.
* This article is the complete opposite of the subject matter. Biased towards Mormonism. Doh ! PalX 21:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and Bias