Talk:Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 3

message: Greetings, all. There's quite a history of dispute on this page, but hopefully we can find a way forward. From looking at the history, I can see that you're all pretty intelligent, reasonable people, even if you've had some heated disagreements, so I don't see any reason why we can't resolve this.
A bit of background for me, just to give you some idea where my strengths (and weaknesses!) lie: I am a liberal Anglican, theologically trained, and have studied Mormonism and LDS theology in the past.
====Initial impressions====
One thing that struck me when looking through the article and history of disagreements is that the statement of LDS views and statements of LDS criticisms are mixed together. Seems to me the clearest way of presenting the information unambiguously would be:
#Clearly state the LDS view
#Clearly state the criticism
#Clearly state the LDS response to the criticism
So, for example (this isn't necessarily meant to be accurate, but an example of the structure):
:The Church teaches that man may ascend to godhood. By faithfulness to God's commandments, Mormon males may receive "exaltation" in the future life. Some LDS theologians have written that God himself was once a man who was exalted to godhood.
:Critics believe this doctrine is a heresy that compromises monotheism and contradicts the Bible, which says that man is "dust", and that man "shall have no other gods before me".
:In response, LDS proponents have likened the doctrine to the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of Theosis, and argued that it is simply an extension of biblical promise of a future inheritance as sons of God.
Whether the LDS view is entitled to the counter-response is up for debate.
Anyway, that's my first suggestion - Clearly separate the LDS views from the criticism. My thinking is that if we can establish a few ground rules, we can start to work through each section together and reach a consensus. Any thoughts?
:: My first thought is that your POV is colored by your theological background.  Your phraseology, ". . .contradicts the Bible, which says . . " shows that you are not neutral on the issue.  That you question whether "the LDS view" is entitled to counter-respond is reprehensible.  The whole issue is regarding criticism of a religion and its beliefs, yet you automatically assume that the right to defense is a privilege, to be granted or withdrawn at the whim of others.  
::I believe that the only effective moderation will be by a small, select committee composed of both Latter-day Saints and Gentiles, which will be able to work together to neutralize POV and eliminate confusion.  I cannot be properly moderated by non-Mormons alone, due to their ignorance of the subject, nor could Mormons alone do it, due to their ignorance of the critics' positions.  Critic-at-Arms 01:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary Mormon church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  This is the primary target of criticism of Mormonism.  There are other churches which are "Mormon" to one extent or another, including one which is called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  Note the difference in punctuation and capitalization.  Critic-at-Arms 01:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediator comments

message: One thing that struck me when looking through the article and history of disagreements is that the statement of LDS views and statements of LDS criticisms are mixed together. Seems to me the clearest way of presenting the information unambiguously would be:
#Clearly state the LDS view
#Clearly state the criticism
#Clearly state the LDS response to the criticism
So, for example (this isn't necessarily meant to be accurate, but an example of the structure):
:The Church teaches that man may ascend to godhood. By faithfulness to God's commandments, Mormon males may receive "exaltation" in the future life. Some LDS theologians have written that God himself was once a man who was exalted to godhood.
:Critics believe this doctrine is a heresy that compromises monotheism and contradicts the Bible, which says that man is "dust", and that man "shall have no other gods before me".
:In response, LDS proponents have likened the doctrine to the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of Theosis, and argued that it is simply an extension of biblical promise of a future inheritance as sons of God.
Whether the LDS view is entitled to the counter-response is up for debate.
Anyway, that's my first suggestion - Clearly separate the LDS views from the criticism. My thinking is that if we can establish a few ground rules, we can start to work through each section together and reach a consensus. Any thoughts?
:: My first thought is that your POV is colored by your theological background.  Your phraseology, ". . .contradicts the Bible, which says . . " shows that you are not neutral on the issue.  That you question whether "the LDS view" is entitled to counter-respond is reprehensible.  The whole issue is regarding criticism of a religion and its beliefs, yet you automatically assume that the right to defense is a privilege, to be granted or withdrawn at the whim of others.  
::I believe that the only effective moderation will be by a small, select committee composed of both Latter-day Saints and Gentiles, which will be able to work together to neutralize POV and eliminate confusion.  I cannot be properly moderated by non-Mormons alone, due to their ignorance of the subject, nor could Mormons alone do it, due to their ignorance of the critics' positions.  Critic-at-Arms 01:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial impressions

message: There was also an issue with who we are talking about when we refer to "Mormons" and "LDS". It would be good to discuss that issue and clarify things. My perception is that the article is intended to be addressing the official teachings and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Perhaps others can weigh in with their views.
::The primary Mormon church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  This is the primary target of criticism of Mormonism.  There are other churches which are "Mormon" to one extent or another, including one which is called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  Note the difference in punctuation and capitalization.  Critic-at-Arms 01:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LDS/Mormon

message: Can I suggest that everyone hold off making major edits or reverts for the time being? Continuing to revert each other's edits is fruitless, and we've a much better chance of getting somewhere if we all agree to discuss the article and thrash out the main points of contention here on the talk page (without personal attacks). Agreed? David L Rattigan 23:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing/edit war

message: All other discussion will go here.
:I look forward to moving ahead.  The proposal to separate Mormon statements of belief and then the criticisim is acceptable and should be a clear way to avoid conflict.  I have a degree of ambivalence regarding not having a response from Mormon perspective.  Articles of this sort are an exception on WIKI rather than the rule.  It may be helpful to have a response.  Many editors have a limited understanding of Mormonism or they are misinformed about its theology.  Having an opportunity to respond may allow for concise responses that clarify proper Mormon perspective or correct misunderstandings.
:Most critiques are directed at the LDS church and its theology; however, if things progress on this article I am certain that comments will be more appropriately be directed towards the other groups found within Mormonism.  
:I have always felt that this article was needed on WIKI because the purpose of the article, as I understood it, was to address Mormonism from the scholarly historian's perspective and not "my church believes this and so you are wrong" perspective.  We have Mormonism and Christianity, Anti-Mormonism, Exmormonism (and this article) that come immediately to mind.  All of them address perceived falsehoods, errors, lies, etc. of Mormonism.  I am not sure that they are all needed.  What is the difference now between Mormonism and Christianity and this article?  If this article is going to continue to be about doctrinal differences it has lost its purpose and is only a reflection of either M&C and/or Anti-Mormonism.  If so, I would then recommend that it be deleted for redundancy.  Storm Rider (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also look forward to moving ahead.  I also think the above outline would help clarify the issues, and the LDS counter-response would be helpful to do this.  Personally, I think Anti-Mormonism addresses more emotionally-charged differences, while this article addresses more scholarly differences.  I am less clear about the difference between this and Mormonism and Christianity, but that is probably because I haven't been following that article as closely. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion/responses to mediation

message: For purely practical reasons (it was huge), I archived the previous few months discussion to Archive 2. This may be a helpful link for the mediation discussion, as a few of the issues have already been discussed there. David L Rattigan 07:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive January - May 2006

message: Storm Rider is essentially upset that the article isn't biased in favor of Mormonism.  A.J.A. 16:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AJA, you are hardly coming across as NPOV. Please try to rein it in a little. Remember, Wikipedia is about discussing different points of view, not supressing them. See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:WikiLove DavidBailey 22:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't understand NPOV. (Which was already obvious by your reversion.)  A.J.A. 22:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was useful information related to the discussion. Please read Help:Reverting, especially the "move to talk" section. Because you disagree with something doesn't make it irrelevant. What you consider to be POV, may in fact be NPOV if you have strong feelings on the subject. See "Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete" in NPOV article. The paragraphs contained valid information, even if you disagree with them. DavidBailey 23:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ultimately, we need to restructure the article as suggested by the moderator; separating statements of belief from the criticism. DavidBailey 23:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: "Belief in exaltation has been defended by reference to passages such as 2 Peter 1:4, as well as many statements by early Christians about humans being divinized (a doctrine known to the Eastern Orthodox as theosis).[5] Christian apologists reply that there is only superficial similarity, noting the crucial distinction made between the Divine energies which creatures may participate in, and the Divine essence, which is uncreated and therefore entirely different from whatever is created.[6]"
You can suggest improvements. Note that improving is not a synonym for "making more Mormon".  A.J.A. 05:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Already in the article 

message: Hi, all. Can we agree not to make major edits or reversions during this mediation discussion? It's pretty pointless and we'll just end up going round in circles.
Also, please keep the tone peacable. If we start giving each other attitude, making accusations and using inflammatory language, we just put each other on the defensive and the discussion stops being about content and gets taken over by people trying to defend their personalities. Let's just discuss the evidence sanely and reasonably. Agreed? David L Rattigan 07:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was tired last night. Usually, I'm quite a bit easier to get along with. I found A.J.A.'s continued, unrepentant insistence something new on Wikipedia for me. When he reverted an edit I worked on for around an hour trying to find middle ground, I was fairly upset. In any case, as a result he received a 24-hour block. The administrator made it clear that reversions based on content dispute are against policy, and that the 3RR can only be superceded for reasons of obvious vandalism, not disagreements. I think we all need to adopt a civil tone moving forward and avoid reverting except in cases of obvious vandalism. It really is quite inflamatory. DavidBailey 10:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You apparently see something offensive in your above post that I don't see.  I think it is a great idea that we develop a consensus on each section the article first, and then update it.    I believe this will make it easier to identify doctrine from POV.  I'm guessing that we all have been convinced we know what is true at some point, and then found out we were wrong.  I know I have, so I understand where A.J.A. might be coming from. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 12:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not offensive, but more stern than necessary. DavidBailey 16:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we agree not to make major edits during the discussion?