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

Nature of the Holy Spirit

I really believe that, if we start evaluating "Mormon" doctrine, yet hold ourselves from making any statements that perhaps some of the minor offshoots disagree with, that we are missing the point here. Look, if Joseph Fielding Smith said that the Holy Spirit/Ghost is a spiritual being, then that is Mormon Doctrine, and it is believed by 99.999% of the people who call themselves Mormon. If you want to put a caveat in there, then fine, but the fact is, if this isn't Mormon doctrine, then there is no Mormon doctrine, because there are more micro-offshoots that you can count from sunrise to sunset on the summer solstice. (of course, if we want to talk about the future of the Holy Spirit, then that really opens up a can of worms that you will never successfully close). Unschool 06:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Unschool. Please note the difference between Mormon, Mormonism, Latter Day Saint, Latter-day Saint, and the Latter Day Saint movement.

We've developed this terminology over the course of the past four years on Wikipedia - we have adopted terminolgy used in the academic community. Please note the following:

Mormons and Mormonism are those who adhere to the teaching of the Book of Mormon. This includes Strangites, FLDS, Apostolic Brethren and many others. Latter Day Saints includes all who believe that Josesph Smith was inspired, inclding Community of Christ, Bickertonites, Hedrickites, and more. Latter-day Saints are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

According to my estimations, there are a little more than 12 million Latter-day Saints, a little under 15 million Mormons (which includes Latter-day Saints) and approximately 18-20 million within the Latter Day Saint movement (inclusive of many groups including Mormons and Latter-day Saints, including cultural Mormons who adhere to the culture only - like our recent gay mormon on survivor that was never baptized, but claimed he was a gay mormon). I think that said Latter-day Saints make up about 60-75 percent of Latter Day Saints, and about 80 percent of all "Mormons." Latter-day Saints do NOT own the term, regardless of how snobbish and ignorant we all are to others within the movement.

My point is that they are not minor "micro-offshoots" but groups that are larger than other denominations in the U.S. and need to be addressed better from an understanding point of view. There are many commonalities between groups, and this article addresses them. They were carefully picked, and not perfect in any stretch of the imagination.

That said, and that definition being used, just because Joseph Fielding Smith said something, does not mean that all "Mormons" or Latter Day Saints believe it. Let alone all Latter-day Saints. Orson Pratt, and others had conflicting views on what the difference was between the Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit, and some scholars see a difference between them. This gets pretty complex within Mormon theology, and this article is not about complex Mormon theology, but rather, about criticism against it.

Another example is given elsewhere - who appeared to Joseph Smith? According to him, "the Father" and "the Son." Not all "Mormon" groups believe that was Elohim and Jesus. Some believe it was Adam and Jesus, others different things (at least a quarter-to-half million non-Latter-day Saint Mormons believe this). It seems strange to most Latter-day Saints, but that is the other belief.

Please be tolerant and understanding - no offense is meant. It is a complex issue that has been worked out over time. I do hope you continue to contribute to WP:LDS-related pages, but please note the nuanced terminology. It is very important to about 80 percent of the Mormonism and Latter Day Saint movement articles. -Visorstuff 17:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Obviously, I was ignorant of the evolution of the articles and their vocabulary. The LDS/Mormon articles are not my primary interest here, but if I find time, I will try to come to a better understanding of these differences. There is, assuming that all you say is accurate (and your patient tone does much to add credibility to your points; thank you), a lot more subtlety here than I realized.

As I had said to another person regarding this page, I have a problem anyway with the notion of there being "correct" disagreements and "incorrect" disagreements (that verbiage just doesn't flow right, to me), and I just wonder about the whole point of an article called "Criticism of Mormonism" (do other religions have such an article?). I am pretty sure that I just don't have the stomach to engage in debates on this topic. Nonetheless, I thank you for opening my eyes. Unschool 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-Mormonism, like Anti-Semitism..."

I removed this bit of rhetoric, which is straight out of the talking points of the LDS apologist group FAIR. They like to begin any discussion by suggesting a connection from anti-Mormons to anti-Semites and call to mind Nazis and the Holocaust... a non-argument that is pretty blatantly biased itself. - Reaverdrop 06:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so what you said FAIR uses it commonly as a talking point. Now try to explain why it is so dissimilar that it is POV or inappropriate. After doing so we can discuss your issues. As of now you have done nothing to provide any reasons except your own jaundiced view of FAIR. Storm Rider 08:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Storm Rider. The phrase "like Anti-Semitism" doesn't sound POV to me, and helps those not familiar with the situation understand what the term Anti-Mormon is addressing. I would prefer to see it added back in. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the point is, how is Anti-Mormonism like Anti-Semitism? What does it mean? Anti-Semitism brings to mind Nazis and the Holocaust. FAIR and a lot of Mormons label pretty much anyone who offers a viewpoint critical of or inconvenient to the LDS Church as Anti-Mormons. There are a few wackos who get really indecent about it, the ones who wave temple garments around outside General Conference. But that fringe is a small minority compared to the many earnest critics of the LDS Church who share their views in a way that isn't shy but that is decent and respectful. Approach someone handing out pamphlets critical of the Church outside General Conference or the Hill Cumorah Pageant and nine times out of ten they are polite and friendly and will carry on a respectful discussion as long as you're willing. The term Anti-Mormonism has historically meant theological criticism of LDS and Mormon theology, while the term Anti-Semitism has historically meant something dramatically different than theological criticism of Judaism. Critics of the Church don't kill or lynch Mormons. Anti-Semitism has nothing at all to do with Anti-Mormonism. A Wikipedia entry should stick to the facts, and throwing in a reference to Anti-Semitism has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts of Anti-Mormonism. It's just a rhetorical tool to slur critics of Mormon theology, history or practice, by bringing to mind an association with something genuinely sinister and hateful. It adds nothing factual, but it adds an invidious POV. There is no reason to keep that comparison, and a compelling reason to dump it. - Reaverdrop 20:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Mormonism and Anti-Semitism are similar in a number of ways. In both cases, governments wrote laws ordering their extermination, each on the basis of bigotry and false charges. Both the Mormons and Jews were forced to flee homelands due to mob violence, murder, and arson which were condoned (if not supported) by the governments. Both are the targets of disinformation/demonization campaigns aimed at destruction of their cultures and peoples. Many of the most vocal critics of one are also critical of the other. Critics of each make wild, false, tittilating claims. Critic-at-Arms 06:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Mormon Activism is the same as any hate group - and is different than criticism of Mormon theology. I disagree that historically this is what it meant. To me, it is the public efforts of some to destroy the church, the movement, the culture and in some cases the lives of Mormons. It is apparent in temple garment-waving activists, in those who throw rocks at missionaries, of those who make videos with the intent to destroy the church. Honest criticism and disagreement is not considered anti-mormon by most. FAIR and FARMS definitely expand this group into those who publish criticism with then intent to harm the church. This is not differnt than the definition of anti-Semitism or anti-catholic. -Visorstuff 01:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree that there are some anti-Mormon activists so extremist that they act out of hate, but I disagree that these are the people usually intended by the term "Anti-Mormon". The term is typically applied broadly to everyone who stands outside General Conference or the Hill Cumorah Pageant passing out pamphlets critical of the Church, and broadly to everyone who tries to debate members or especially investigators and new converts about the merits of the Church; and the substantial majority of these people, while they might be strident, do not qualify as hate groups - they stick to debating the merits of the Church, and don't go so far as to throw rocks at you or spraypaint slurs on your car or burn a cross in your yard just because you're Mormon. I think actual perpetrators of hate crimes represent a small fringe compared to the type of people typically referred to by the term "Anti-Mormon". There's often not even an overlap. My brother's car was spraypainted with Mormon-referencing slurs, which the police recorded as a hate crime, but the guys who did it only did it to try to offend him, not because they had particular criticisms of the church. On the other hand, one guy we ran into occasionally in the mission field said God had told him in a dream that he had a mission to "convert" Mormons to (trinitarian) Christianity, and he was so strident an Anti-Mormon that he would actively seek out missionaries, members, and investigators to try to argue against the Church - but that's all he ever did, argue, but which didn't keep him from being polite and behaving decently. Some friends of mine actually had a sort-of-high-profile investigator who was visited by several Antis, including Steve Benson who flew to Wisconsin from Arizona just to try to argue this guy out of joining the church. (He joined, and was actually given permission by the First Presidency to get his temple endowments only six months after being baptized.) Those guys were strident Anti-Mormons, but again, all they did was argue, not commit hate crimes. This is a huge, dramatic distinction. It's inconceivable that using a label conflating over that distinction would not be a gross slur, let alone non-NPOV. - Reaverdrop 02:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Reaverdrop, "Critics of the Church don't kill or lynch Mormons." You have been very careful to keep your comments to the present tense. But historically, anti-mormons have been very violent and killed members of the Latter Day Saint Movement. This violence and murder is why the church started in New York state, but was driven out of there, Ohio, Missouri and finally Illinois. The expulsion from Missouri was primarily due to the Extermination Order signed by the govenor of the state to either drive them from the state or exterminate them. (This "Extermination Order" wasn't recinded until 1976.) The Utah War included a third of the standing United States army of the time that was sent to (what would become) Utah. During this "Utah War", a wagon train passed through Utah that was massacred. "There are accounts that rumors were circulating in the region that among the Fancher party were members of a mob that killed Mormon founder Joseph Smith, Jr." The mob violence on one side does not justify the mob violence on the other side, but for you to imply by your statements that such harrassment, violence and murder has not occurred in highly POV. This is the type of incidents that I want to lead the Anti-Mormonism article, but I haven't taken the time yet to rewrite that article.

But if you'd like to talk about recent incidents: A few years ago, an LDS churchhouse in southern Utah county was burned. It wasn't investigated as a "hate crime", and when it was eventually proven to be so, it wasn't charged as such. This is because Utah doesn't have "hate crime" laws and the federal government didn't want to charge it either. (I object to "hate crime" laws on principle because they de facto violate the "equal protection" clause of the U.S. Constitution.) When that same churchhouse was again burned, no one even brought up the possibility of it being a "hate crime". It turned out to be an electrical fire. But this demonstrated the bias of the media in this state, because when the Greek Orthodox churchhouse had burned about the same time, the term "hate crime" was in every story. (That one turned out to be some children who attended the churchhouse who were playing with matches.)

About two months ago, in northern Ogden, a Radio Shack employee (young man, white shirt, dark pants & black name tag) was beaten up for being a Mormon missionary. The reason that he was beaten up was made clear by multiple witnesses hearing the slurs and threats yelled by the people in the car before they got out and beat him up. It turns out that he was neither Mormon nor a missionary, so the assaulters weren't charged with a "hate crime". (While Utah still doesn't have such legislation, Ogden might.) The two missionaries that were shot recently turned out to be because they had witnessed a crime rather than who they represent. These are just the incidents that have been reported in Utah that I know of. Other people have related to me incidents that have occurred elsewhere in the United States and around the world, but that would be too far from the source for me to repeat.

While Jews are much more hated worldwide, to the point of people wanting to harrass, do violence and/or murder them, this does not mean (as you have been so careful to imply) that such violence has not and does not occur to Mormons. Val42 19:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's just not what I'm implying though. You've accused me of implying "that such harrassment, violence and murder has not occurred", which is simply not true - and is not the type of accusation that should be leveled without taking much better care to get your facts correct.

Of course there were Haun's Mill and other atrocities against Mormons historically, and occasional acts of violence in our generation with indications of the violence being motivated by religious intolerance. What I am saying though is that the term Anti-Mormon has an established general use to describe the much more common non-violent critics of the Church, and not to describe violent criminals motivated by religious hatred - making it fundamentally different from the traditional, established use of the term "Anti-Semite" - and second, that there is a huge and hugely important distinction between the two groups, which is glossed over by using a single term to conflate the two, doing an enormous disservice to rational discussion and NPOV encyclopedic entries.

Of course violence on one side did not justify violence, beyond justified self-defense (which it was), on the other - whether in the Mountain Meadows Massacre as you suggest, though the evidence for laying blame in that seems circumstantial and otherwise scarce - or even in Missouri - that extermination order, shameful and atrocious that it was, did not spring wholly formed out of nowhere, but was apparently in response to previous violence by newcomer Mormons against non-Mormons.

We should definitely have an article on the history of anti-Mormon violence, but it should not be inserted into an article entitled "Criticism of Mormonism". The butchers at Haun's Mill were criticizing Mormonism - they were just committing murder, apparently motivated by a tribalist intolerance of outsiders.

On a tangent, if people assaulted a victim because they believed him to be a Mormon and that motivated their assault, they could probably still be prosecuted for a hate crime - they committed the crime with the mens rea of a hate crime, which is not altered by their mistake of fact. - Reaverdrop 20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I made the mistake of mixing something that should be on the "Anti-Mormonism" article (when I get around to it) and what was on this page. Several people have objected to the renaming of the Anti-Mormonism page to this Criticism of Mormonism page in the middle of a discussion as to whether or not a move was appropriate. Rather than do the same (non-consensus move), a discussion was started that eventually died out. What you may have dealt with was what was left-over or something that was added back in due to the discussion of what the scope of this article should be. In the context of this article (which many, including me and outsiders (people not editing the article), have questioned the validity of existing), it probably doesn't belong. But in the context of the Anti-Mormonism article talking about historical violence against Mormons, I think that comparisons to Anti-Semitism would be appropriate. But that is a discussion more appropriate for that article.

But since this article isn't about "Anti-Mormonism" itself, I think that this term should be removed from this article.

As for the "tangent" (at the end of my previous comment), the Ogden Standard Examiner reported that the people who assaulted the man couldn't be charged with a "hate crime" because the man that they assaulted wasn't part of the group for which they were assaulting him. It took a few days for the police (or the prosecutor) to determine that, so it must be in how the statute was written. Val42 04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Link list

The link list seems excessively long. Couldn't we cull the list a bit? Are all these links really necessary? The Jade Knight 06:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree - they are not appropriate in most cases. That said, neither is the section about Anti-Mormonism, which should be removed and added to that article. -Visorstuff 22:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• [1] - A Forum for ex-mormons

Any particular reason why this is considered "self-promoting" and not notable? Alienus 23:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, how is the link relevant? This article is not on ex-Mormonism, or even anti-Mormonism. Secondly, how is the link notable? It has a total of 18 members. It would be rediculous to link to every forum associated with a video game, for example, or every radio station that played a style of music. There's just no reason for this link to be here. The Jade Knight 01:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a web encyclopedia, that said it should list every pertinent fact or website link. It is for the users discretion...not yours Jade Knight. (unsigned post by User:206.99.236.189)

That this is a web encylopedia is exactly Jade Knight's point. No encyclopdia will use an online bulletin board as a referenced source. in this case, the link is as the equivelnet as linking to an online dating site - it is interactive and provides no educational benefit that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Please read wikipedia's policies about third party links. There is no reason to include this one. -Visorstuff 20:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What is this all about?

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)

We should be more careful with our wording here. "Criticism" is the noun form of the word; "criticize," the verb; "criticizing," the current participle and gerund, etc. There is no difference in definition of the forms other than the differences in the parts of speech themselves; therefore, the above attempt at distinction is misguided. It is simply the responsibility of readers to differentiate the scholastic, logical meaning of "criticism" with the negative connotation it has gained. (I realize that this is perhaps tangential; but the matter discussed therein is fully appropriate to this article as a whole, so I thought to add it where it is most immediately necessary.) -calavicci, 07:24, 2006/05/06 UTC

Changes in Book of Mormon

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)

That is a good idea. The Jade Knight 20:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Anti-Mormonism

Comments for, against, or otherwise touching on the proposed merger with Anti-Mormonism:

Support

1. 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)

   Not problem - this is a honest dispute - i think that the intent is that the topic deserves its own history eventually, as it is. The history of the Anti-Mormon movement is very complex and rich. Even those who are anti-mormons who don't think they want to destroy the church, they in deed do. perhaps it is just positioning/marketing thing, but seeking to destroy or change the ideology of Mormonism is the same as destroying the church. I do think it is unfortunate that th term gets unilaterally applied to critics, and that is one reason why I am careful to use terminology such as "that person is engaged in anti-Mormon activism," rather than saying "that person is an anti-Mormon." -Visorstuff 22:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

   That caution is something which I appreciate greatly. I'm stuck on how the "anti" label is applied, though. Like I started to get at above, the way I'm seeing things (and correct or add to this as you see fit), the anti-Mormon group seems to divide, more or less, into two categories: those who have an opposition to the Church that they manifest through non-violent means (picketing, etc.... i.e. Decker's Saints Alive group), and those whose have violently persecuted the Church (Extermination Order, the Carthage mob, etc.). I know that's a very, very general description, but to me there's a key difference between the two.

   I'm starting to see the rationale behind keeping the two separate, however. In lieu of a merge, maybe expanding the Anti article to more clearly distinguish the forms opposition takes (and do some cleanup to the Anti section of the Criticism article) would meet the goals of both sides to the merge. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Support - Given that the bulk of those who use the term "anti-Mormon" are Mormons who use it to describe anything that criticises the Mormon church, I do not see how these are different. Unless, of course, we are going to be very specific in the opening paragraphs of each article to how they are being defined and that the definitions are clearly separate. --Kmsiever 20:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Just re-read the intros to both articles. How could they be clearer? -Visorstuff 22:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 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)
2. Strongly oppose See Talk:Anti-Mormonism#Anti-Mormons_vs_Critics_of_Mormonism. One can be a critic, but not an anti-Mormon activist. Combining the two would be equivalent of saying everyone who does not agree or criticises the Catholic church is anti-Catholic. Or that those who criticise Jews for not "seeing" Jesus as the messiah are anti-semetic. Anti-Mormon activism's goals are to destroy Mormonism, whereas criticism of Mormonism is merely disagreement with the church, culture and doctrines. There are very, very different topics. -Visorstuff 19:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Strongly Oppose - It is possible to be critical of something without being "anti"-something. "Anti-" has the sense of active opposition to the existence of something. I've even known faithful LDS members who have been noticeably critical of some doctrines their faith taught, but they were by no means "anti-Mormon".--WilliamThweatt 20:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

   Can you explain further what you mean by "active opposition"? It has a subjective feel to it; in the personal example I mention above, I could see some defining an ex-Mormon giving a lecture on "witnessing" techniques defined as active opposition, and hence, receiving an anti-Mormon label. I think giving a precise definition to the term will help clearly delineate the two. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Strongly Oppose - As someone who has a brother who sends anti-Mormon literature on a regular basis, I certainly believe that the two are polar opposites. I would not like to see the two topics covered in the same article. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

   Go into more depth on how you see them as polar opposites... as both parties stand in opposition to Church teachings, I'm not seeing as drastic of a difference. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   I can give an example. I have had occaision to attend General Conference and I often see two types of "Christians". One group takes temple garments and rubs them between their legs, has a Book of Mormon on a string and throws it out at the feet of passing LDS, and carrying numerous signs about Mormons going to hell. These I would label rabid anti-Mormons. Then I have had the pleasure of meeting another group of Christians who firmly believe in Christ, they stand in group and welcome those who pass by, proffering good wishes and to enjoy Priesthood meeting. This group carried no signs of condemnation, but I would say they carried the Spirit of Christ with them. Yes, I suspect they might think I err in my beliefs, but are still willing to stand by me as brothers and sisters. Are they polar opposites? Believe me; they are not even remotely close. Who might you think relects the light of the Savior? There is not even a contest. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose -- Anti-mormonism as used by members of the LDS faith (myself included) carries the implied sense that the arguments are poorly formulated, are straw-man, false dilemma, or just plain ad hominem. Criticism of Mormonism, as said above, is more about criticism, question or problems with a specific doctrine and/or teaching, like condom use among devout catholics. I think they should remain separate as they address different points. Bo-Lingua 21:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

From merger to revision

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)

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)

Text deleted by Stylemaas

===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)

Anti-Mormonism

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. [2]

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)

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)

More transferred text

Criticism by Former Members

Literature by former Mormons who actively criticize the church often generalize their experience as typical of most members who leave the religion. For example, if a person grew up in the Mormon church, "going through the motions" of regular church attendance while secretly harboring doubts, they might assume that many other Mormons felt the same way. Some Mormons may express doubt but feel unable to express their emotions outside of the LDS enculturation they have grown up in or accepted. Some of these members may have been closet doubters and can see their LDS experience as strengthening to their own life experience. The 'go along to get along' approach is very commonly expressed on the Exmormon bulletin board. This seems to be similar to being a member of a religious group for cultural reasons without participating in the faith of the religious group.

Many former members are from Utah or other communities with large Mormon populations. For some, regular church attendance was a product of peer pressure or familial expectation rather than personal conviction. If they relocate to an area where Mormons are less prevalent, the culture shock of new surroundings bereft of expected LDS support structure often leads to inactivity.

Literature authored by some former members who convert to Evangelical Christianity contains claims that as a Mormon, they personally lacked a close personal relationship with Jesus Christ and in their new religous affiliation they have found success in strengthening their relationship with Jesus Christ.

Friendships with nonmembers, disfellowshipped and/or former members are common and encouraged; however, sympathizing with apostates who actively attack the church is discouraged by LDS church leadership, and continued support can be grounds for denial of a temple recommend.

Apologetics

Mormon Apologists are those who directly answer the questions of critics of the LDS church. Mormon apologists would answer the above allegations by explaining the actual doctrine taught by the LDS Church, as this is where most of the criticism is directed. These items correspond in order to the questions raised above.

• God has a physical body. We do not know anything about God before He was God (except that there was such a time), but the pattern which has been defined for us on this Earth gives implications. According to the Book of Abraham, the star nearest to where God dwells is the star Kolob.
• Again, the pattern defined for us on this Earth implies that God also has a wife. The Church teaches that we have all existed eternally as "intelligences"; God "organized" these intelligences, of which Jesus was the greatest and first to be organized, into "spirit children." Lucifer was a leader in heaven, hence he is called a "son of the morning." When Lucifer was cast out of Heaven for rebellion, he became known as Satan, a fallen angel.
• The Book of Mormon relates that three separate groups, the Jaredites, Nephites, and Mulekites, were directed by God to leave the Eastern Hemisphere and come to the Americas. Their intermingling with other cultures already established on the American continent is implied but never explicitly stated by the text. About the year 400, most descendents of the migrant groups were completely destroyed; only the Lamanite culture survived. The Lamanites were averse to written records, "civilized" lifestyles, and were more likely to intermarry with indigineous tribes. Because of promises made to them by God, they are considered inhabitants of the Americas, even if traces of their DNA are negligible.
• According to the Book of Moses, God created many worlds with inhabitants; this does not mean that all created planets have inhabitants, which has no support in LDS doctrine.
• After the Second Coming, the earth will receive its paradisiacal glory. Jesus will reign personally upon the earth; after the Millennium, the earth will become the Celestial Kingdom, the glory of which is symbolized by the brightness of the sun.
• Before the Fall of Adam, the earth existed as a paradise, i.e. the garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, they were ejected from the garden. Earth and its inhabitants were removed from the glory of God, which is called spiritual death.

Modern day criticism

Some individuals and organizations are active in opposing Mormon beliefs and campaigning against the Mormon church today. Many are ex-Mormons themselves, particularly plural wives, who have become active in opposing the polygamist practices of other sects. Some anti-Mormons direct their criticism toward Mormon church leaders, past and present.

More hostility tends to be directed toward church leaders of the 19th century than towards more recent leaders.

General Conference and Temple Open House Protests

Some anti-Mormons are openly hostile toward Latter-day Saints. It is common to find them among other protesters at major Church events.

Common slogans and themes of these protests at times involve the garment held sacred and worn by latter-day saints who have attended the temple. The temple garment is displayed and often mocked in public, which LDS faithful consider extremely offensive. Further, slogans on signs and pamphlets emphasize, but frequently mischaracterize, concepts of the LDS faith including, but not limited to, deification, polygamy, and polytheism. Posters opposing abortion are yet another popular theme (a curious topic given that the church is likewise opposed to abortion). These themes are emphasized by most who oppose the Church, but it is the technique of mischaracterization these individuals use that most Mormons and former Mormons find disagreeable.

Same deal as above. WP:NPOV WP:NOR

Article intro

Regarding this edit, I don't quite understand the reason for "tightening" the lead-in. I've seen many perfectly good articles with very long introductions. So, somehow, two short paragraphs don't seem bloated enough to warrant this sort of gutting. In any event, the new wording is awkward and opaque.

What does it mean when one says, "Latter Day Saints claim revealed support for their doctrines and practices, but to many Christians, Mormonism represents a departure from Biblical Christian belief."

I mean, what is "Biblical Christian belief"? How does it differ from "accepted Christian belief"? Indeed, is there a kind of Christian belief that isn't derived from the Bible? And what is "revealed support"? Revealed by who? Are we talking about prophets?

I know this complaint sounds kind of vicious. It's not meant to. I'm just confused. Epsiloon 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't the sheer length I was worried about. The intro just seemed to have things that didn't quite belong. The two big cuts I made:

"In their early years, Mormons encountered frequent conflicts, which forced them to move westward, and eventually settle in Utah. Even after establishing a community in Utah, criticism to plural marriage and other beliefs prompted the Utah War."

The article's not about violent conflict, but criticism. Many Mormons treat them as, if not the same thing, very close to the same thing, and that's their POV, but I don't see that the article should view criticism from that perspective. I suppose at some point "Historic criticism" will need to be changed some more to make that vantage point less prominent (probably by lengthening it and giving more attention to the voices against polygamy, racism, etc.).

"The bold claims of Mormonism act as something of a magnet for hostility. For example, Mormons insist that the authority to act in God's name was lost in apostasy, and was only returned to humans with the restoration of the true church (through Joseph Smith)."

"Bold" seems a favorable way of putting it, but in general this belongs in "Doctrinal criticism".

In principle two paragraphs would be fine, but they'd have to be the right paragraphs.

I changed the "departure from Biblical Christian belief". I hope it's clearer now. The issue is whether they contradict the Bible; there are plenty of Christian beliefs that are non-Biblical, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary (which often inspire debates about whether they're also anti-Biblical that get into incredible detail about Greek prepositions and the like). A.J.A. 15:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with deleting the stuff about conflicts, because it really isn't relevant to the article, let alone the lead-in. But I thought the whole point of the first few paragraphs was to foreshadow topics that are discussed later on (e.g., the "bold claims of Mormonism"). Also, it seems perfectly kosher to open with a summary of why there is criticism of Mormonism to begin with (e.g., the "bold claims of Mormonism"). And yes, the repetition is for effect. Epsiloon 16:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, there's a summary again, which mentions several topics instead of just one. (And it's back up to two paragraphs.) A.J.A. 19:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Great. I think you deserve a virtual pat on the back. Epsiloon 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Just to add another cleanup header...

Tonight I took a shot at cleaning up the article some, but wore out after the The nature of divinity subheader. My principal concerns were rewriting some sections which did not read in an encyclopedic tone, and removing some POV material from both sides of the story. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum to bring up extensive anti-Mormon arguments or responses to them. A brief description of some major criticisms is appropriate; what is not is "side A says this (ref)(ref)(ref), side B responds (ref)(ref)(scripture), side A responds (scripture)(ref)(scripture)" and so on. There's also some POV pushing, as suggested by the wording. This article still needs work, and I'll take a shot at the rest soon, but would appreciate some feedback to the changes I've made. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't approve of this. It hardly does more than mention the existence of the controversy. It didn't have much more before, but it was intended to be expanded. Now you want to just mention it and apparently give such coverage as it gets from an essentially Mormon perspective.

Also "achieving divinity" is appalling and totally wrong. A.J.A. 18:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I just looked again and it's even worse. While deleting from a section devoted to discussing criticism, you expanded a section mostly talking about violent conflict, which entirely conforms to the typical Mormon perspective but not reality and certainly not NPOV. I'm reverting this. A.J.A. 19:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

AJA, you just reverted an hour's work of work with hardly any explanation at all. I'm willing to review specific issues that you see with the edits, but reverting it and claiming that I'm "entirely conform[ing] to the typical Mormon perspective" isn't the way to go. Perhaps you'd be more willing to accept my perspective if you knew that I'm an ex-Mormon that left the LDS Church over a number of doctrinal differences and now work in the ministry of a Protestant church. While I still deeply respect Mormonism and appreciate much of what it offers, you could hardly claim that I'm pushing their point of view any more than that of its critics.

Let's talk specifics. You say "achieving divinity" is appalling and totally wrong. What about it makes you say that? Also, if you read above, you'll notice that I wasn't finished with the edits, which is why the section of violent conflict may seem emphasized. You indicate that there's something different from reality in that section, to what exactly are you referring? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 22:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The typical Mormon perspective is that violence fits well in an article like this. They like to elide the difference between disagreement (with them, and only with them) and persecution. (The reality is that there's a huge difference.) Ultimately I'd like to eliminate all discussion of violent conflict and replace it with a description of the criticisms they've gotten for the now-abandoned practices like polygamy, racism, blood atonement, etc. But the rest of the article needs to be built up first. The stuff about violent conflict doesn't need to be made any longer, and certainly not at the same time the coverage of the article's actual subject is cut back.

It's not much better for the article to be written from a perspective of deeply respecting Mormonism than it is from an out-and-out Mormon perspective. Both evidently don't consider any criticism much worth discussing.

Small differences in formulation often indicate a huge difference in underlying worldview. That's how "achieve divinity" is; it biases the case by defining theosis in a way that makes it sound Mormon. A.J.A. 02:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your desire to expand the article as a whole and want to do the same; but cutting out one section because you don't think another is long enough doesn't make any sense. Perhaps creating a Persecution of Mormonism article in the future would be a good way to split off the section on violence; in any case, criticism often took a violent form, an observation unrelated to one's personal religious beliefs. Concerning your objection over the definition of theosis, I see the difference between "achieving divinity" (my wording) and "being divinized" (your wording) as minute, but I'm fine leaving your change. With only two examples of why you felt the need to revert my edits, I'm not convinced by your reasoning. I'm switching it back for now, keeping your redefinition of theosis.

To me, your statement that "it's not much better for the article to be written from a perspective of deeply respecting Mormonism" suggests a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. A respect for the subject matter of any article is necessary to understand it and portray it in a neutral light. If you find examples where the subject is misrepresented, please point them out. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 03:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The subject matter of this article is criticism of Mormonism. The problem is you don't respect it, because you view it from the perspective of deeply respecting the thing criticized. You're letting that determine the selection of material and depth of coverage, namely, lots that makes Mormons look like a poor oppressed group we should sympathize with and support, and very little that might suggest there are serious reasons for thinking Mormonism, the belief system, might not be true. But critics of Mormonism do think they have serious reasons. This is the place for a respectful, NPOV coverage of the reasons they give.

What doesn't make sense is making one section shorter because you don't think it deserves attention while expanding material that doesn't really fit well, and then complaining that I merely "don't think (it) is long enough", when I don't think it should be made shorter. A.J.A. 14:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. A third opinon has been requested on this. My outside, neutral judgement, is that Tijuana Brass's version is more NPOV (i.e more neutral, better) than the other version. However, as an outsider, I can't see a whole lot of significant other difference. I suggest that this article is PRIME material for the main/sub format. Ok the point of this article is criticism of Mormonism right? that means there should be included the criticisms of mormonism, would be a concrete point. Responses to said criticism should be brief, if at all. Any criticisms significant enough to warrant their own article (i.e. criticism of Polygamy, prosyletizing etc.) should be given a {{main|main article address}} tag and be kept as brief as possible. All the detail should go into those sub articles. If there is not already a subarticle, but there should be:....well there you go. Give it a {{main|main article address}} , leave a brief summary, and then put the detail in the subarticle. No difference, just that you actually need to write it. If the criticism does not warrant it's own article, then it by nature should be kept as brief as possible. We're not here to discuss the merits of any criticism in depth, nor are we here to attack or defend mormonism. It should look like this: Criticism of Mormonism--->Criticisms--->Brief description of criticism a/Brief description of criticism b/Brief description of criticism c. This is one of those articles where "less is more". For instance, in the article, it says "The nature of Deity itself is disputed. Mormons believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate beings with tangible bodies of purified flesh and bones but orthodox Christians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one substance and that God the Father does not have a tangible body.". That's not a criticism, that's a comparison. Rather, it'd be appropriate to say "Mormons have been criticised for having incorrect views of the Trinity" and then, cite a reference to that, and wikilink it. Congratulations, 4 lines of information only tangentially relevant have been compressed into 1 cogent, relevant line. Then, if a reader wants to know MORE about that debate, they can click onto a subarticle, or research it throught the cite, or wikilinks. My point here, is that I believe that Tijuana Brass's version is closer to accurate. I'll be willing to work with you all in an editorial capacity (cutting the waste/POV) on this article, rather than a creational capacity (as I don't know all that much about mormonism). See next paragraph for more.

"My point here, is that I believe that Tijuana Brass's version is closer to accurate."

Name an inaccuracy in my version. A.J.A. 18:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm not sure why you're stuck on the belief that I'm taking a pro-Mormon standpoint. Clearly I must have some sort of respect for the "criticisms," else why would I have left the LDS Church? In any case, personal opinion on the merits of both Mormonism and its opponents is wholly irrelevant here, but if it sets your mind at ease, most Mormons would probably add my name to the latter group (a temple recommend interview certainly would, heh). Rather than continue this thread, however, I'm moving down to Swatjester's to take this on with a paragraph by paragraph approach. Feel free to continue this discussion on my talk page if you feel so inclined. By the way, would you be interested in joining the LDS Wikiproject? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement

Ok, so it's been requested that this article be improved, as it's disputed right now. Lets follow the model in use at Neuro-linguistic Programming..we take one paragraph at a time, and rework it until we're satisfied, and then move on to the next. We can start with the first paragraph right here. Criticism of Mormonism (part of which may be labeled anti-Mormonism) is the criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, especially of the largest and most prominent sect, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("LDS Church").

Ok, here are my thoughts. The part saying (part of which may be labeled anti-Mormonism) is irrelevant to the introduction. This article is not primarily about anti-Mormonism, it's about the criticisms (individual) of the religion. anti-Mormonism could, and probably should get a brief paragraph later on down the page. Hence, I suggest it be removed. Secondarily, I think the section saying the largest and most prominent sect is redundant, as the LDS church is automatically implied to be a part of the LDS movement. It could be removed as well. The new version would say Criticism of Mormonism is the criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement and/or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("LDS Church").. Because this is one short paragraph, the whitespace could be removed, and it be integrated into the next paragraph. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph by paragraph approach seems like the right way to go (personally, I get quite lost when reading this article). But I don't think it will be very much help just yet. It is unclear to me (and presumably to others) what the focus is supposed to be. Is this article merely a presentation of assorted criticism? Is it the correct venue to present counter arguments? These are the questions that must be answered before any serious work can be done.

As to the lead-in, rewriting it is trivial once we can agree what material belongs there. So, towards that, here are my two cents:

• It is important to make a distinction between criticism of Mormonism and anti-Mormonism. From what I've read, many people assume that anyone criticizing Mormonism is an anti-Mormon. In order for the rest of the article to be understood, people must know why anti-Mormonism and Criticism of Mormonism are different articles. So, in practical terms, I think the (part of which may be labeled anti-Mormonism) comment is too parenthetical; that's my only problem with the first paragraph.
• Secondly, people should understand the motivations for criticism. Briefly mentioning the different kinds of criticism, as well as their source, is helpful to the reader. This also feeds into my first point, because one of the many motivations is having a dislike of Mormonism (i.e., anti-Mormonism).
• Finally, even if this article is going to be of the tit-for-tat, argument->rebuttal->counter-rebuttal variety, I don't think any of that belongs in the lead-in. We should be attempting to define criticism of Mormonism, rather than provide examples of Mormon apologetics (perhaps a Defence of Mormonism article is in order).

With all that in mind, the following is an example of how it could be applied:

Criticism of Mormonism is criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, especially of the largest and most prominent sect, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

As defined here, criticism is an all-encompassing term referring to any scrutiny of, or disagreement with, Mormon beliefs or practices. Such criticism is not limited to any single topical arena, be it theological or historical, and thus a wide variety motivations fuel the criticism.

Christians often attack Mormonism from a doctrinal perspective, whereas archeologists question the historicity of much of the Book of Mormon. Others might be called anti-Mormon, in so far as their attacks are motivated by a dislike of Mormonism.

I wouldn't want to have that as the actual intro, but it does explain some of my position.

Anyway, I would really appreciate feedback on this. Epsiloon 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Swat, you're a genius. I agree that it's the right approach, and also agree with both of the changes you suggested. And Epsiloon, while you say that you wouldn't suggest that as the actual intro, it seems pretty close to how I think it should read: short, to the point, and gives a brief explanation of exactly what is meant by "criticism". I'd change "Christians offten attack..." to "Theologians often attack" and "archeologists" to something more general and inclusive, perhaps "scientists". I'd probably also change "dislike of Mormonism" to something a little stronger; "opposition" is the term often used on Anti-Mormonism.

Also, rather than head towards a revert war, I'm going to hold off on restoring my prior version, but would like to still refer to it in the history from time to time — not because I necessarily consider it better, but I think it may help provide another perspective to work from. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

After a bit of tweaking, this is what I get:

Criticism of Mormonism is criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, especially of the largest and most prominent sect, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

As defined here, criticism is an all-encompassing term referring to any scrutiny of, or disagreement with, Mormon beliefs or practices. Such criticism is not limited to any single topical arena, be it theological or historical, and thus a wide variety motivations fuel the criticism.

Theologians often attack Mormonism from a doctrinal perspective, whereas scientists and scholars question the historicity of much of the Book of Mormon. Others might be called anti-Mormon, insofar as their attacks are motivated chiefly by a desire to antagonise.

An improvement over what there was, but it's hardly ready for "prime time" just yet. For one thing, the third paragraph seems like it should be better integrated with the second. As it stands, it's a little disjointed. Epsiloon 10:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Round two. I've tried to incorporate some of Tijuana Brass's introduction (some good stuff there), but I'm forced to be extremely selective if the word-count is to stay down (which it is), so this is the modest expansion that results:

Criticism of Mormonism is criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, especially of the largest and most prominent sect, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter referred to as the LDS Church).

As defined here, criticism is an all-encompassing term referring to any scrutiny of, or disagreement with, Mormon beliefs or practices. Such criticism is not limited to any single topical arena, be it theological or historical, with motivations thus ranging from mere academic interest to religious prejudice.

Theologians often attack Mormonism from a doctrinal perspective, out of concern for orthodoxy, whereas scientists and scholars question the historicity of much of the Book of Mormon. Others might be called anti-Mormon, insofar as their attacks are motivated chiefly by a desire to antagonise.

I'll take another crack at it later. For now, I need some more coffee (which I guess means I'm not a Mormon).

Feedback good. Rigorous dissection better. Epsiloon 08:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What it be appropirate to juxtapose the difference between Criticism of Mormonism and anti-Mormonism? I believe there is a difference, but some of the above seems to muddy the distinction. Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly a concern which has come up. For the sake of brevity, though, maybe it'd be good to leave it with a suggestion to refer to the Anti-Mormonism article for a more detailed discussion. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done with the lead-in for now. I gazed at it for a few minutes, but then I was bored snotless at the prospect of rewriting something I've already rewritten twice. I'm moving onto the next paragraph.

This time around, we have _*drumroll* this:

Mainstream Christian theologians who address the topic usually teach that Mormonism is a form of pseudo-Christianity, which has departed from the teachings given in the Bible and now espouses beliefs fundamentally different. Mormonism is sometimes called a cult. At other times it is compared with ancient gnosticism or Arianism.

Here are some thoughts:

• The term "Mainstream Christian theologians" implies that Mormonism is a type of Christianity, which is something not everyone would agree with. Perhaps we should stick with non-controversial designations.
• As A.J.A. mentioned, there's plenty of mainstream Christian belief that doesn't, itself, come from the Bible. Do Christians really attack Mormonism on that basis? Seems like a pretty weak argument.
• The word "cult" is mostly used as an insult, rather than an accurate description of anything, and what point is there in saying "Mormonism is sometimes made fun of by people who don't like it".

Here's what I propose:

Non-Mormon theologians who address the topic, usually teach that Mormonism is a form of pseudo-Christianity, which has departed from generally accepted Christian belief. At times, it is compared with ancient gnosticism or Arianism.

I can't think of anything else to do with it, even though it seems a bit too brief. Comments welcome. Epsiloon 11:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been suggested that the deliberations are incomplete without my participation. Here's my revision of the intro revision draft:

Criticism of Mormonism is criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, especially of the largest and most prominent sect, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As defined here, criticism is an all-encompassing term referring to any scrutiny of, or disagreement with, Mormon beliefs or practices, including any motivations from concern for their souls to academic interest to religious prejudice.

Theologians might critique Mormonism out of concern for orthodoxy, while scientists and scholars might question the historicity of much of the Book of Mormon. Others appear simply antagonistic, and are sometimes called anti-Mormons.

1. I'm not sure the article actually does consistently call the CoJCoLdS the "LDS church".
2. If we've already defined criticism as covering any scrutiny of or disagreement with Mormonism there's no real need to say it's not limited to one topical arena.
3. It should include a religious motivation which would considered positive, otherwise it might give the impression that religious motives in general are labeled prejudiced.
4. I'd think most theologians, scientists, and scholars rarely or never have occassion to comment on Mormonism. So "might".
5. "Critique" is more neutral than "attack", and if it's concerned for orthodoxy a doctrinal perspective is what you'd expect.
6. Others' motives are murky, but we can be pretty sure of how they appear.

Also a few comments about the doctrinal criticism intro revision. The criticism isn't just that Mormonism isn't found spelled out in the Bible but that it actually contradicts the Bible. Even groups everyone considers Christian can be said to depart from generally accepted Christian belief, if by "generally accepted" we mean all the other Christians. E.g., Baptists disagree with almost everyone else about the proper mode and subject of baptism, Catholics disagree with everyone else about the status of the Bishop of Rome, and so on. Saying "So-and-so does things different from everyone else" isn't the same as saying "So-and-so radically opposes the Biblical concept of God", and the latter is closer to the kinds of objections people actually have.

I agree with taking out the word "cult". I do think there should be some mention of "heresy", though. I admit it's hardly less infamatory than "cult", but it's a defined term of theology. If we admit some common basics (such as, Jesus existed and is God), either Mormonism or Trinitarianism or both must be heretical deviations. A.J.A. 00:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input A.J.A.

For the sake of brevity, I'll reply to your numbered list with a numbered list:

1. You're probably right about that, but I think we should be calling it "the LDS church" throughout the article.
2. I agree with your second point.
3. I agree with the premise here, but something about "concern for their souls" seems a little un-encyclopedic. Perhaps there's a better way of putting it.
4. Sure, most theologians and most scientists don't bother weighing-in on the debate, but when we say "theologians", we are not saying "all theologians" or even "most theologians". In this context, the reference is to only those theologians and scientists who have said something on the matter; the reader makes the automatic assumption that we are not referring to everybody (for what I hope are obvious reasons).
5. I agree with your fifth point.
6. Yes, but the sentence you are referring to is hypothetical; it refers to a hypothetical anti-Mormon, so there is no need for qualification. What we are saying is that anyone with the aforementioned motivations can be called an anti-Mormon. We are not saying how one is supposed to know the motivations of others, merely that if we did know them, we have criteria for judging whether they are anti-Mormon or not.

Now, you insist that "generally accepted" belief is a matter of point-of-view. To me, it seems like Christians manage to agree on a small set of fundamentals, such as Jesus being the messiah and the risen son of God. The differences between mainstream denominations appear relatively minor. For example, you mention baptism, saying that Baptists diverge from what is generally accepted. Yet from what I know of Baptists, the disagreement isn't over whether to be baptised or not, but over specific details of what baptism actually does. My feeble mind cannot recall any Christian denomination that actually opposes baptism.

Anyway, maybe "generally accepted" should be changed to something else so it only covers major doctrinal issues. I can't think of what that change might be, but I'm sure somebody else can.

Lastly, even if the word "heresy" has been defined by theologians (which it has), many readers will understand heresy to mean witchcraft or such like. And surely being understood is more important than being technically correct.

Okay, here's my revision of the revision of the intro revision draft:

Criticism of Mormonism is criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, especially of the largest and most prominent sect, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter referred to as the LDS Church).

As defined here, criticism is an all-encompassing term referring to any scrutiny of, or disagreement with, Mormon beliefs or practices, with motivations ranging from mere academic interest, to concern for one's soul, to outright religious prejudice.

Theologians critique Mormonism out of concern for orthodoxy, whereas scientists and scholars question the historicity of much of the Book of Mormon. Others might be called anti-Mormon, insofar as their attacks are motivated chiefly by a desire to antagonise.

I'm not married to all of those changes. I'm just trying to give an idea of what I'd like to see, which is why I put all of this on the talk page, rather than straight into the article.

Peace. Epsiloon 05:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The "concern for one's soul" part still sticks out as unencyclopedic. I'd like to rephrase it without losing the concept. Here's a few tweaks, only to the last two paragraphs:

As defined here, criticism 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.

Theological critiques of Mormonism come out of concern for orthodoxy, whereas scientists and scholars may question the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The term anti-Mormon, which is often misused, refers to those whose criticism is motivated chiefly by a desire to antagonise.

More changes... added "critical" to scrutiny, as pro-Mormon groups like FARMS scrutinize as well. Also reworded the last paragraph to make it a little more general; for example, scientific criticisms of the BoM aren't limited to historicity. Finally, clarified that "anti-Mormon" is an oft-misued term; not all critics are anti-Mormon, of course. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 02:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've completely run of out steam on this issue, to be honest. I much prefer my revision from the 11th of May to what we've come up with since. Every time we make changes to the content, it's as if we try our darndest to preserve the old sentence structure or a couple of words we like, even at the expense of readable phrasing. I'm convinced that the whole thing needs to be rewritten, from scratch, keeping in mind what's been discussed in the last two days. I'll probably take a crack at it myself, but not right now. Epsiloon 08:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'd find it easier if we could discuss one issue at a time from now on (I don't know if I can stomach another bullet-pointed or numbered list). So how about we move through the current draft of the intro, tackling each contentious word or phrase individually?

I'll get the ball rolling by making a new heading for the discussion (this particular thread is getting a bit crowded). The first issue that comes to mind is FARMS and how it affects our definition of criticism. Epsiloon 09:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Historic criticism

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)

Reverting again

At the risk of adding to my reputation for reverting anything I don't like, I'm going to undo the recent series of small edits [3]. My reasons:

1. "Other Christian denominations" and "other Christians" is POV. It implies Mormons are Christian too, which is disputed. This point is important enough to use awkward circumlocutions if necessary, but the term already used (mainstream) flows easily enough. As far as I can see, the only reason to replace it with "other" is to add the implication that Mormons are Christian.
2. It changes the wording to downplay the differences. The theology proper is different, and theology proper is the root of everything else; therefore the difference is radical.
3. Even the non-problematic edits add little value. He did change "the theological areana" to "theology", which tightens it up, but the intro is likely to be replaced soon. A.J.A. 03:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

radically is POV. WIKI does not take sides in an issue or provide judgement. I removed the word to align the article with NPOV. Further, Mormons do not believe they are limited to modern day prophets, rather they believe restoration of the church is supported by scripture and prophets, past and present.

WIKI is not in the position to say who is Christian and who is not. It is sufficient to state that Mormons believe they are Christian. Any groups perception of itself is not dependant upon gaining the approval of any other groups. Your edits attempt to provide evidence of the strength of criticism prior to even discussing the issues; the tone and writing does not meet NPOV standards. The objective is not to show bias to either side. To state "other Christian denominations" is not POV, but rather it is point to discuss in the article; not confirm in the introduction.

I would suggest you move slower and discuss some of your ideas prior to making them. Sometimes we begin to smell our own ether so much we all lose objectivity. In this instance, that line has already been crossed. Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your revert was not helpful. Those editors who are actively working on this article are quite aware of the POV problems, but there has yet to be agreement on how to fix these.

Regarding the introduction, there is an on-going discussion about it on this very talk page, which means you are completely out of turn. And I say this regardless of your complaints about bias and such like. It is not for you to determine what does and does not conform to NPOV policy, because such a judgement is, in itself, a subjective one. On Wikipedia, people should be seeking consensus of some sort, particularly for highly disputed articles, but your action was nothing but unilateral.

If you want to assist in improving this article, perhaps you should start by co-operating with other editors. Your knowledge of the subject would prove valuable to our discussions, so your participation is encouraged. But further changes of the kind you just made, no matter how much you believe them to be urged by policy, will only serve to inflame. Epsiloon 14:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are speaking to me, Epsiloon. I have been a long time editor on this article. My last edit was April 25 and it is one of the articles on my watch list. I will address your comments in order given above:

1. Just because some editors are aware of POV problems does not entitle the same group of editors to continue to promote those same POV problems. I made edits and explained them the same as AJ did above. Obviously concensus prior to editing is not a standard on this article.
2. WIKI does not promote whose turn it is to provide edits. It is an open forum. AJ's edits were POV and are not acceptable. Question: Exactly who do you think is responsible for determining whether something is POV or meets NPOV standards. This is not rocket science, but rather demands a degree of expertise in a given field and objectivity.
3. Question: Mark Twain has never been viewed as a reputable source for religious opinion or thought. Is there a reason he would be quoted? He was a wonderfully witty fellow and one our the US's premier writers, but he was hardly a resource to comment on relgion. Would another commentary be acceptable?

I stand by my edits. If you question their validity and the standard of NPOV, please do so. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of what you say has merit, but there are several clarifications I need to make. First off, my main purpose in replying to you was to answer the suggestion that nobody is aware of the article's POV problems. I tried to make it clear that the complete opposite is true. Evidently, I failed. Badly.

I'll address your points in order:

1. If what you're trying to say is that A.J.A. should've been criticized for what he did, then you're right, this is a fair point to make. But I'll try to explain myself a little. You see, A.J.A. did a few things that blunted the annoyance of his revert. Firstly, he acknowledged that the intro is likely to be replaced soon. This tells me that he's been paying attention to the discussions on this page. Secondly, A.J.A. has been providing well-considered criticism to those aforementioned discussions. This tells me he's willing to work with others. What's more, he was also far less "high and mighty" in his use of words than you have been. You should understand that if you come storming into an article, launching accusations of bias left and right, and justifying your actions via a weak appeal to Wikipedia policy, nobody is going to be happy with that. It does not show good will.
2. Perhaps my exact wording was ill-conceived. I didn't mean to imply the existence of an actual turn-based system of editing. Generally, to say somebody is "out of turn", is simply to use a figure of speech, so perhaps you should try interpreting my words somewhat less literally from now on. What I meant was your edit seemed very abrupt; I would have liked to see you get a dialog going with other editors before reverting the article. As to your question, I think consensus is the best way we have of maintaining objectivity. No single person, no matter how expert, can be the sole arbiter of what is and is not POV. And, once again, you are attempting to be that arbiter, which is why I'm annoyed with you.
3. I think you're right that Mark Twain is not a qualified religious commentator. However, this article is about "Criticism of Mormonism", not "Criticism of Mormonism by those who are reputable and qualified". And, yes, any other commentary is fine by me, so long as it is some form of criticism directed at Mormonism.

In sum, I think you are being aggressively unilateral, and I think your actions are detrimental to the spirit of good will. You make definitive pronouncements on what is and isn't kosher, without asking for other opinions. And you appeal to policy as if you are the superior interpreter of it, without asking for other opinions. The fact is, you are being patently uncooperative.

On a final note, let me make it clear that I'm not accusing you of making POV edits. What I'm accusing you of is making unhelpful edits. I hope you can understand the distinction. Epsiloon 04:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Let us agree that you and I disagree on this matter and move on. When AJ goes in a makes drastic edits, he invites other editors to join the edit. I view this a little bit like the pot calling the keetle black and I am puzzeled that AJ has not attempted to engage in discussion of his edits and the reasons he posited for those edits. You entered as an avenging warrior and made some very broad allegations. POV and NPOV are policies of WIKI just as using reputable sources is a policy. Every article is assumed to use reputable sources not just those who qualify in their title that they are reputable, scholarly articles and not the simple, base opinions of those who have a soapbox or axe to grind.

Could you please show me where AJA's edits received the concensus of other editors for his edits? I am more than happy to meet those same standards that others meet on this unique article. As far as I can tell there was no concensus or seeking of the opinions of others prior to making his edits. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that A.J.A. never sought consensus. I have already explained why I didn't call him up on it in the same way I did with you. Allow me to quote myself: "A.J.A. did a few things that blunted the annoyance of his revert". I still found his behavior annoying—not least because reverting is almost always unhelpful—but he did do some things that softened the impact, and I explained what those things were in my previous post.

As for the whole "avenging warrior" thing, I probably was a little too harsh. However, I think I have sufficiently accounted for all of my complaints. Even though the wording could have been better, I stand by the substance of what I said, and I hope you can understand why I raised the issues I did.

Moving on, your comment about reputable sources is incorrect. Certainly, it is necessary to use reputable sources for content that states a fact. If I wanted to state the population of China, I would have to find a reputable institution that collects such information, and reference them accordingly. The same goes for any other matter of fact. However, you cannot extrapolate this rule to cover all content on Wikipedia. When it comes to matters of opinion, the rules are different. The article we have is called "Criticism of Mormonism", which means its sole purpose in life is to provide examples of criticism, and to explain those examples and their context. This includes any opinions that readers might find pertinent and interesting.

Mark Twain was a critic of Mormonism, and he said things about the Book of Mormon that are still commonly repeated today. This automatically makes his opinion a part of the tapestry of the subject (i.e., relevant). Moreover, you would be hard pressed to find a critic from his era that is better known in the 21st century, and there is a certain pedagogic value in quoting well-known people. That is, readers can more easily place criticism within a time frame if they can more easily place the critics within a time frame.

Now, I really hope this argument doesn't go back-and-forth for too much longer. It'll be a complete shame if everyone is too busy verbally jousting to get any work done. Epsiloon 07:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Reputable sources should be the standard. Criticism made by Mark Twain are reputable if the source being cited for his criticism is reputable. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. It's not appropriate to cite Mark Twain without providing a readily available source for his criticisms of Mormonism. It is that source which must therefore be reputable. Did it cite him correctly, can it be relied upon as accurate and reputable? Also, I think that it's important that Wikipedia does have a standard as to which sources to include. Citing a webpage of an individual who has no credentials and who is currently living would probably fall outside of the NPOV policy. Let's keep in mind that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopedia and that articles should be professional and not amatueristic. It may well be true that this article is about criticism of Mormonism, but that does not mean that the article itself should be a criticism of Mormonism. It should accurately list criticisms of Mormonism but not become a criticism of Mormonism. Edward Lalone 17:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's very clear that this article is POV. That is why I made minor changes in NEGATIVE words that implied a POV. The changes did not alter the overall content of the article only the POV.

First, who determines what's a mainstream christian church? The term "mainstream Christian" implies that certain denominations are mainstream while others are not. Who decides which are and which are not mainstream? While the term "other Christians" may imply a POV the phrase being corrected by it implies a stronger POV and implies that Mormons are not Christians which is a point I dispute and which should not be a part of the article proper.

The term "mainstream" does not flow, it implies that Mormonism is not mainstream Christianity. This is a point that can and must be disputed. The only reason that replaced it with "other Christian denominations" was to delete the implication that Wikipedia believes that there is a mainstream Christianity, and that Mormons are not a part of it.

If that is a POV that needs to be expressed in the article I see no problem with it. Say something like, "Some Christian theologians feel that Mormonism is not a part of mainstream Chrisitanity as defined by those theologians." Problem solved. The article itself should not be written as if Mormons are not a part of mainstream Christianity.

The only solution is to refer to all other Churches as "other Churches,"other Christians," "some Christian theologians," etc and to refrain from providing POV. It can be disputed in the article whether Mormons are Christians. That's the intent of the article.

But the responsibility of Wikipedia is not to decide which churches are Christians and which are not, which are mainstream and which are not, nor is it the place of Wikipedia to decide what is and is not "indiscriminate," "radical," etc. I stand by my edits and still disagree with the POV of the article proper.

It's important that the articles here are written in a neutral tone. The only way you can do that without downplaying differences is to focus on theology, and on content and not on tone and connatation. There is no reason that someone who reads the article can tell that someone who holds a certain belief wrote a specific part of the article. It was quite easy for me detect a POV upon reading the article for the first time. I think that the revert is inappropriate, and that the person who did the revert did so because he wants his POV to remain a part of the article. I have decided to edit it again, this time simply pointing out that some Christians feel that Mormonism is not part of mainstream Chrisitianity as they define it.Edward Lalone 22:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Faith and Works

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)

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)

FARMS and criticism

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)

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)

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)

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)

Keeping on track

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)

Call their wifes to them?

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)

Exaltation

I'm taking out the clause about the wives.

The rest of what you've done:

1. Bad writing. Is there some pressing need to bloat out the word count with useless verbiage like firstly, fundamentally, to further clarify? Or to replace "believe" with "postulate other concepts or principles"?
2. The edit clarifies nothing, but obfuscates at all points by replacing a clear statement with two descriptions that make it sound Christian without ever plainly stating what it actually is. This is both uninformative and POV.
3. This article is called "Criticism of Mormonism": "Mormons have been criticised for rejecting the Trinity" is on-topic. Stating only their position and then describing it in unclear but positive terms is not.
4. You keep adding you believe that the Son has a physical body. If we were talking about Docetism that might matter, but I can think of no NPOV reason for including it here.
5. Mormons do not believe in a form of theosis. A.J.A. 15:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The article title is accurate, but that does not allow an editor to present LDS or Mormon theology differently and in a negative manner. Your consistent edits misrepresent LDS theology and distorts what Mormons (remember not all Mormons are LDS; there are many groups within this group).

This revert only attempts to present the "argument" as if one is writing a tract for anti-Mormonism. WIKI demands that we write both sides objectively. For example, stating Mormons have been criticized for rejecting the Trinity. Who criticizes Mormons for this belief? Mormons are not Trinitarian. It is better to state they are nonTrinitarian! It is appropriate to say most Christians are Trinitarian, but a minority are not. You distort criticizes with anti-Mormonism. Critical thought is something different. I would like to hear what you think it is.

Mormons believe that God the Father and the Son both have physical bodies. That is different from other Christians. You need to make sure you understand who is doing the criticizing and why. Those people need to be identified. The majority of Christians in the world are Catholic; are we going to use them as the basis for what is termed Christian thought and doctrine? Or are we going to use Evangelists, which disagree on many important areas of doctrine with Catholics. The statements of what others believe follows the statement of what some Mormons believe.

Check out the article on Theosis before you speak or at least read an authoratative review before deleting references to Theosis and Mormonism. Eastern Orthodoxy, for however much they attempt to distinguish their statments on Theosis, very often sound exactly like LDS beliefs when they speak about this subject. Also, who gets to define what theosis is; who is the final arbitor? Mormonism does have a theositic belief structure. WIKI does not attempt to define who is right or wrong on any subject, but report objective facts. This article will be no different.

Also, why do you insist on deleting facts. If it is not mentioned in Mormon scripture, it is not mentioned. Not being found in their cannon is of import.

I am reverting your edits for being misleading and POV tone. This is not a onesided article and we need to identify who is doing the criticizing and provide references to those groups in the article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to understand the NPOV policy better. Refusal to let you advocate your POV in the article is not the same as pushing the opposite POV. A.J.A. 02:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please review all of the edits. You reverted the criticism regarding marriages in heaven with references. This would seem appropriate for the article, no?

I have read NPOV, multiple times, but I appreciate you pointing it out. We obviously disagree with not only NPOV, but also balance, tone, facts, etc. On WIKI we do not advocate a POV on a concious level (everyone has a POV, we just attempt to minimize it). In doing so we achieve balanced, factual, encyclopedic articles. This is not the place for soapboxes and for venting POV.

I noticed that you still have not answered the questions I posed above. They are meant to engage you in the process that we differ on. What do you think this article is about? Shouldn't we identify who is doing the criticizing? Why delete factual statements such as when a belief is not doctrinal or found in scripture? Why not identify Mormon concepts of Theosis? Just because you might diagree with it, does not mean you should it should not be mentioned and identified as such. I would look forward to your comments. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd been confused by the break in the indentation.

Now I'd be interested in knowing just what you think the article topic is. You seem to be saying that anyone who criticises the Mormon rejection of the Trinity -- all non-Trinitarians by definition reject the Trinity -- is an "anti-Mormon" and therefore pathologized so his arguments can be ignored.

"Mormons believe that God the Father and the Son both have physical bodies. That is different from other Christians."

I'm not sure what you mean by this and I'm even more dead-set against including any language at all about the Son having a physical body. You seem to be implying that Christians don't believe that.

Whether the Eastern Orthodox say things that sound like exaltation is irrelevant. C.S. Lewis also said the same kind of thing (I've read it myself in the original context and also seen Mormons quote him as if he agreed with them, which is mistaken at best). What the Orthodox (and for that matter other Christians, although it's not expressed in the same ways) have in mind is mystical union with God. Exaltation is achieving the same status as God, much as a child achieves the same status as his parents when he grows up (an analogy I've seen used). Which then brings us back to theology proper: according to the Orthodox (actually all Christians) there can't be multiple beings with the status of God, because God is that which every other thing depends upon to exist. A different ontology of God cannot but mean a totally different view of what "becoming God" would mean. Just quoting a few lines without pointing out the whole theology behind them is misleading. And explaining that theology refutes the claimed equivalence.

Just saying Mormons believe in theosis is factually wrong, and takes a side. (Incidentally, I like how you use the fact that Wikipedia doesn't take sides to show how it should take your side. You did that earlier when the alleged bias of "mainstream Christians" was used to argue that the only option was adding the POV that Mormons are really Chriostians.)

Incidentally, if Mormons have been involved in editing the Theosis article I wouldn't trust its accuracy. Try this.

I did see the part about marriage in Heaven. It's badly written and probably belongs in the (yet to be written) section about Mormon practices. Certainly not where you had it. A.J.A. 03:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

LDS Theology and Mormonism: different things

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)