Talk:Get the Fire
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Get the Fire article.|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Article assumes the LDS church has black and white, dogmatic thinking and focuses on missionaries who question their religious upbringing and belief system.Joshuajohanson 06:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Lets take this step by step.
1. "Focuses on missionaries who question their religious upbringing and belief system". Well, the film had a lot to do with people who fit the given description so I think it's perfectly fair to mention it. It's not POV, it's simply a description. And of course you're welcome to add a sentence about those who didn't question their beliefs. But the other side should not be censored just because they had doubts.
2. "LDS church has black and white"
"Black and white" rather points at those specific people, not the church as a whole. It points at their total belief and trust in the LDS church and thus - metaphorically - black and white worldview. It does not say that about the church, that's a whole different thing.
3. "dogmatic thinking"
This is just nonsense. There isn't a christian or christian-related church on this earth which doesn't have dogmatics, thus isn't dogmatic. Teachings of a church are it's dogmatics.
Like, looking at the wikipedia article about LDS church, it says: "The church teaches that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are "one God" in the sense that they are one "in purpose", but does not accept the Nicene Creed's definition of Trinity, that the three are "consubstantial"."
Exactly that is a description of a part of the LDS church dogmatics.
So, conclusion: The article is not POV, but rather just not ready. Right now it represents only part of the necessary information about the film, but what it does have is accurate. It does, however, need a person willing to write it more thoroughly so all sides would be represented and proper paragraphs presented.
I'll remove the POV sign for now, but of course you're welcome answer to my arguments. Androg 10:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)