Talk:Anti-Mormonism/Archive 1

message: What does anti-Mormon mean.  I am collecting a few references:
*Jeff Lindsay uses anti-Mormon to describe research involving the DNA and the Book of Mormon in http://www.lds.org/newsroom/files/jeff_lindsay_DNA_3.pdf.
*Anti-Mormon sentiment in Illinous in 1846 in http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showpackage/0,15367,3899-1---6-579,00.html
*Anti-Mormon militia in Far West in http://www.lds.org/churchmagazines/7-2001-Ensign/Jul2001Ensign_Articles/Jul2001Ensign_12.pdf
*Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism says that Signature Books is anti-Mormon. This article also says that Europe is in a state of cultural barrenness.
*http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=535 describes street preachers shouting insults at worshippers. This article says
*:We can assume that publications of the Utah Gospel Mission and the Utah Lighthouse Ministry, for example, are anti-Mormon,
*Also any publication with a lot of inaccuracy is anti-Mormon. Quoting extensively from the 1800s, when the sermons are no longer repeated, is anti-Mormon. If the publication always shows the church in a negative light, it is anti-Mormon.
Nereocystis 16:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Uses of Anti-Mormon

message: There are a few areas which need work before publishing the article.
References are needed. Who defined the term?
References to secular anti-Mormonism, which is used to describe activities contraries objected to by the Mormon church, such as calling Signature Book anti-Mormon.
Anti-Mormonism is first described as active hostility or prejudice, but then it is described as:
:It includes opposition to Mormon doctrines, ideology, organization, history, policies, culture, leadership, influence or political or economical influence
What is opposition to Mormon history? This may include Signature Books, if they include a book which is not approved by the LDS Church. Opposition to Mormon leadership may include disagreement on same-sex marriage or gays in Scouts.  This is not prejudice against Mormonism; it is a careful decision to oppose some of Mormonism's actions.
On the one hand, anti-Mormon seems to be prejudice, on the other it includes any opposition.  By first mentioning prejudice, all disagreement is implicitly including under prejudice.  This makes the article seem POV to me.
Unfortunately, I don't have a simple suggestion on how to change the article. Nereocystis 18:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Areas needing work

message: Is it time to bring this article online? Of course, it's not perfect, but what article is. I think it's an article that has to stay, simply because the word anti-Mormonism is widely used, and there needs to be an explanation of what it is, and how the word is used. I also don't think this affects our pending discussion on the (Criticism of Mormonism page). Regardless of whether or not we have a criticism page (which, of course, I oppose), there will also have to be an anti-Mormonism page, because criticism and anti-Mormonism are not the same thing. I don't even think that anti-Mormonism is a subset of Mormon criticism, because there is anti-Mormonism which is not criticism, just opposition. If we drew a Venn diagram, we'd have two partially-overlapping circles. COGDEN 19:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  I still have a few issues, but not enough time to resolve the issues.  The article is good enough to be moved to anti-Mormonism.  Then we can decide how to merge, extract, delete and cross-reference the other articles. Nereocystis 23:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also favor getting this article on line sooner rather than later.  It may not be perfect, but it is better than what is already there.  Let's go for it.  Storm Rider 06:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm going to bring it online, while keeping everything else constant. If, after it gets more visibility, we decide differently, we can always delete or merge it. COGDEN 18:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your Venn diagram:  much of the described "Anti-" is not "Criticism" at all (but rather abuse of, protest against, etc).  However, I think the until-recent title did essentially cover the whole topic.  Ideally the two articles would be merged (back) there, including a section on the term A-M and its application.  Alai 03:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are talking about Opposition to Mormonism, I think there would be a problem merging criticism and anti-Mormonism there. That's because some Mormon criticism is not Mormon opposition. There are many loyal critics of Mormonism. COGDEN 03:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that article isn't about "criticism" in that sense at all.  It's one of the iterations of the former "Anti-Mormonism" article, subsequently moved to "Opposition", rewritten some more, and lately moved to "Criticism" -- and hardly editted much at all in the process.  Having the two separate articles up in parallel is perilously close to a "POV fork", though I'm certain that's not the intention.  (I understood the plan was for a re-written "Anti-" article to eventually replace the then "Opposition" article.  Alai 03:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bringing the article online 

message: The above section title and the below text was added to the "Anti-Mormon" page:
:Since the name of the Church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, not "The Mormon Church", and that members are latter day saints, or just saints, it would be more accurate to call those who are against the Church Anti-Saints.
This may be a more appropriate term, but it is not the term used in "the wild".  "Anti-Mormonism" is the term used, so that is the name of this article.  Val42 05:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Saints

message: I have added a tag to Postrational Anti-Mormonism, proposing that it be merged into this article. If the text is usable, it should be incorporated into this, possibly as a separate section. Please agree/disagree here.. - N (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the merge. I wasn't quite sure where to put it, but I'll leave that you guys to sort out.. - N (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge from [[Postrational Anti-Mormonism]]

message: I deleted the following text:
*The concept of "blind obedience" on both sides - members who discount antis solely because they are anti and they feel they should ignore them, don't really have a testimony and still don't question (anti's call this blind obedience), anti-Mormons who don't do own research, and who rely on others research instead of doing their own and generally don't know what they are talking about/are easily proven wrong/use old issues. (Mormons call this blind obedience).
This sounds like someone's personal views.  Does anyone have any references to support this viewpoint?  btw, I tried to make a comment in the article using "<>"; what is the correct way?  Thanks.  18:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can comment out a piece of text by surrounding it with   - N (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blind obedience

message: This is, by and large, the most disgusting wikipedia article I have ever read.
--Davidknippers 07:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen, on that. --Kmsiever 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Read through my edits and the comments I left in the article text for some examples. --Kmsiever 16:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits were almost entirely spelling and grammatical fixes; the only comment I noticed was one remarking that a section could use some cleanup. I don't think that's the "disgusting" which David was referring to. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 17:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How else would describe an article rampant with terrible grammar, lack of capitalisation, poor punctuation, POV, first person dialogue, and bad spelling? Perhaps David was referring to the point of the article; I was referring to its content. --Kmsiever 17:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, but I will wait to see what happens with the merger. Why would an outline be published as a public article? --Kmsiever 20:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The neutrality!