Talk:Mormonism and violence

Opening sentence

The first sentence of this article is awful: "Mormonism, throughout much of its history, has had a relationship with violence.[1]" What does that citation even mean? Have any religions had no relationship with violence? It sounds like the wishy-washy opening of a grade school paper. I'd like to see it changed, but I don't know the subject well enough to suggest a more appropriate phrasing.--BDD (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree, although the language is probably mine. I'm not sure what to replace it with, either. The scope of the article is probably ill-defined. It probably should only be about Mormon perspectives on violence. So I don't think we need the "list of wars and massacres" section or the section on Prop. 8 "violence" (which actually just describes vandalism). If the article were more focused, I think we could better focus the opening sentence. Does anybody object to moving the "Prop 8" material to the Protests against Proposition 8 supporters article, and splitting off the "list of wars and massacres" section into a new list article? COGDEN 01:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This entire page really could use a ruthless edit. I mean, a whole section on an anecdotal story about someone getting punched?

Recent edits to Violence related to LGBT people section

I'm not sure in understand the concern of Amadscientist (talk · contribs), as expressed in this revert (with an edit summary of: "Reverting last two edits. References have many problems including possible malware"), so I thought I'd open a this discussion.

• Malware on LDS.org? Really? What is your evidence of this? The LDS.org domain is the principle authoritative source for material that can be cited as coming from the LDS Church, and there are literally thousands of pages on WP that use it. How is it that you are the only person that has ever reported malware at that site? Are you proposing a ban on LDS.org, starting with this article?
• http://www.lds.org/manual/god-loveth-his-children/god-loveth-his-children?lang=eng is the current url for God Loveth His Children at LDS.org, after the LDS Church redesigned their website a few years ago; why is it unacceptable to simply substitute it for the old, very long url?
• Do you seriously think that this...

"God Loveth His Children". Official Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Retrieved 2009-06-13.

... is a better formatted reference than this ...

"God Loveth His Children", God Loveth His Children, LDS Church, 2007

... for this exact same source?

• You believe that it's better to use the "|publisher=" parameter for a newspaper instead of the "|newspaper=" parameter (which properly italicizes the newspapers name)?
• I agree that the Oaks quote as it formerly appeared on this article had a lot of off-topic padding, but in it's latest form (before your revert) it specifically addresses the LDS Church's position on gay-bashing, which is the core subject of the previous two paragraphs. Additionally the quote from God Loveth His Children pinpoints the church's official position on the situation which can cause the scenario described in Packer's antidote. How is this not directly pertinent?

If you could clarify, it would be greatly appreciated. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I also posted this note to the talk page for WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, to try to get some other editors involved who seem likely to have a general interest in this topic. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. It may be that a link that was either already there that you restored contained content that could cause harm or a new link you added had content. This could be ads or posts in comment sections etc. It is not an accusation against the LDS websites you may be using. If you wish a neutral discussion best to notify both the LDS project and the LGBT project as to not seem to be taking a side. The main issue is in referencesing with primary sources and there use to make claims that are not really in the actual source. Secondary, reliable published sources should be used when referencing facts and these are just the opinions of someone very close to the subject itself, the LDS church. It would be more encyclopedic if we stepped back and see that there is probably a mainstream academic rebuttal in direct contxt to this section, but we cannot just pull bits and pieces of doctrine or quotes to stitch together a claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So we can be specific, (1) which of the two URLs you removed is the one that you feel caused a malware report on your PC, (2) what software were you using that generated this report, and (3) what exactly was the details of this malware report? LDS.org doesn't have ads, or comments sections. Also, I see no issues if you wish to invite the LBGT project to this discussion. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I see the claim that there is malware to be the easiest thing to work thru first, as either there is or there isn't, and with a sufficient level detail this should be able to be resolved rather quickly. The "LDS articles use too many primary sources" discussion has happened so many times that I've lost count, and they often blow-up out of proportion, so please let's deal with that second. I'm a wiki-gnome (well maybe more of a wiki-hobbit), so I'd rather deal with black & white facts first, please. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It was reference 26, The Mormon Worker website with a "Web Attack Mass Injection Website" from IP (208.109.181.140,80). I removed it and the section that depended on it that seemed to be little more that promotional and possibly worse.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Firefox blocked me from themormonworker.org as well, apparently because Google reported it as an attack page that installs stuff on your computer without permission. It's odd, because we have an article on The Mormon Worker. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of possiblities including them as the recipiant of an attack from a post or ad etc. But it is very odd.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The section was added here.[1].--Amadscientist (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The article had notability issues that hadn't been addressed - so I deleted it. --Trödel 18:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of primary sources for facts

The Book of Mormon as a Primary source is undoubtably used in the same manner the Bible would. There are many ways in which a statement can be written that is uncontroversial and not likely to be disputed, however when dealing with issues in which a balance of views is being presented the solution is not to simply add the church's response itself and claim the lds article can be used to reference the claims. No, you need a secondary source as well. The primary source merely shows the words of the church or representative on that article. The issue of the pamplet is being used with secondary sourcing and if there is a mainstream academic response it should be added with due weight. Just because this touches on a subject of the church and the church has responded does not mean it is notable enough to mention in this article. We still follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If the response by the church to critisism is notable, a secondary published source will show that.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind being a little more specific about the problem you see? Is someone using the Book of Mormon as a source? Or is your main concern using Dallin H. Oaks's statement? (If the source being used is the Book of Mormon, that's a problem, but if it's Dallin Oaks, then I think that's ok per WP:RSOPINION, as long as it as properly attributed.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon and Bible were used as an example of primary sourcing. The entire Boyd K. Packer sermon and pamphlet section is dependent on primary sourcing and opinions without secondary puplished references. The very nature of the section is done with a simple notion of the subject of violence within the subject of Mormonism. The speculation of the Quinn and Hardy as well as Oaks are not being used from a secondary source. This is really original research at this point and would need some additional referencing and context on both sides to be encyclopedic.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

With some research we may be able to strengthen both claims with additional references and information.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I would start by trimming down the Quinn/Hardy stuff to their secondary published information and see if their attributed opinion is the mainstream and how the Boyd K. Packer pamplet is seen in this reference if at all, by other opinions. The reaction from the church must be limited when using primary sourcing and not just be bits and pieces of docutrine that contradicts, but an actual mention of the pamplet itself. We should look for something like this.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, you're talking about the subsection called Boyd K. Packer sermon and pamphlet, and suggesting that it be trimmed back because it relies on primary sources?

For reference, Packer's comments are cited to his talk in an LDS General conference. Quinn and Hardy's responses are cited to Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought and the Salt Lake Tribune respectively, and Oaks's comments are cited to the LDS-published Ensign.

Which parts, specifically do you recommend trimming? ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Article does not seperate LDS and FLDs

There appears to be a flaw in at least one thing- There is no mention of current church doctrine, or how the church today views the violence in it's past or the split between LDS and the FLDS with more radical views. All churches and religions go through this and an encyclopedic article would surely have a section devoted to analysing what academic secondary sources say about that. What's the mainstream thought on all of this.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the scope of this article anyway?

So I've been doing a little research into this article, and it looks like the scope of this article changed pretty drastically back in June 2009 with little consensus on the talk page. Here's what the article looked like before. It looks like the article has been stripped of anything that mentions violence against Mormons and only talks about violence committed by Mormons. So my question is: What is the scope of this article? It's titled Mormonism and violence but makes no mention of the violence in Ohio, Missouri, Nauvoo, and later Utah that shaped so much of Mormon culture. Could somebody please explain this to me? ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm. First of all, there was a discussion...a pretty good sized one. But the issue of what the article was about had more than just silent consensus. The fact that the only mentions of violenece aganst the LDS church seemed politicaly motivated and pushed as POV and used as unduely weighted balance, as well as there being very little of it meant that it could be used in other articles. Right now those sections are included in Anti-Mormonism.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the original version.[2] I dispute that the article has changed drasticly. The biggest change is the LGBT related section and as I recall when it was added and the LGBT Studies Project added to this talk page, that was a bigger argument of consensus as editors attemtpted to remove the LGBT Studies Project from the article even though it is up to the project to make that determination. As I recall that was a scope discussion as well. So here is the recap: in 2009 the article had out of context information about Prop 8 in an unrelated section. Since that was about all there was the information was transfered to other pages and the article's scope remained about Violence and how the LDS church has used it in the past. Is this article, as it stands on that level worth keeping?--Amadscientist (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I read the discussion from June, but I'm not entirely convinced that there was consensus. Either way, I think the scope of the article is ill-defined, as violence committed by Mormons is often closely tied with violence committed against Mormons. For instance, Mountain Meadows was at least partially a reaction to previous acts of violence against Mormons. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree but it was weak and silent. Now that you have merged the information you have (accept for what I removed as a POV and BLP issue and nothing but an accusation) you will need to do a dummy edit to link back to where you copy pasted the information from and include and fill out the template for this talkpage. At minimum you were supposed to link back in your edit summary to the articles you are copying from.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. All of the copied text was from this very article, from June 2009 version that I linked at the top of this section. Do I still need to fill out the copied template, or am I good? (It actually wasn't a direct copy/paste, as I made a few changes myself.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Only if the Prop 8 stuff originated in a different article. I do not believe it started here, however if it did then you not need to do any of that.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Violence to Mormons stuff as I remember, started here and was transfered and then moved again and the article redirected.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Oaks comments

Can be used but it should be in direct context so instead on having the quote in the Packer section I propose a possible subsection itself along with the official church doctrine on homosexuality. Oaks comments touch on two points:Gay Bashing and programs to "cure gays".--Amadscientist (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This whole issue has WP:Undue weight issues, this is an anecdotal story that can't be traced to any specific acts of violence that resulted from it. --Trödel 19:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I still don't get why the Oaks quote is unacceptable, but the Quinn/Hardy stuff is fine. There is no ambiguity in what Oaks stated (it doesn't need independent interpretation), and it specifically addresses the LDS Church's position about gay-bashing. It is completely NPOV to say "Oaks said: <quote>". It seem like polemic & unbalanced editing to exclude, as if the article is being used to "prove" that the LDS Church teaches gay-bashing is fine, by disallowing material that contravenes that position. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

To wit - regardless of the Packer anecdote, the Oaks quote quite clearly (and almost surgically) addresses gay-bashing, which is directly related to the overarching topic of this article. I can't think of any form of physical gay-bashing that would not be considered a violent act, and Oaks is specifically stating the Latter-day Saints should not engage in it. He also says that LDS should not engage in non-physical gay-bashing, but I don't see that as a reason to exclude the quote. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

Exactly....the Oaks quote has context to the overarching concept of the subsection...not directly to Quinn's claim about the "To Young men only" sermon and pamphlet". It should be in a sub header along with some other information on church doctrine etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, they why did you remove it, instead of just doing what you just described? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It didn't fit where it was or how it was included and is going back (expnaded on a bit actually) along with some other information and references from BYU.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a side note: It would be nice if you would leave clear detailed edit summaries when you're making edits to the article. It's often hard to tell what you're doing, especially when you're adding and removing multiple paragraphs. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's true. Sorry. A bit ill.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. There seems to be somewhat of a disconnect between discussion here on the talk page and edits in the article. It seems like the POV and weight issues are being ignored, while the section on LGBT issues seems to be growing and growing. I think the section needs to be cropped back down to size, taking out the lengthy quotes and the picture, and giving it a brief overview. I plan to make some edits to the article, but I'm a little short on time at the moment, so I may not get to it until Monday. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

First, you can't make assumptions like that. Edits are not directed by the talk page discussion, but edits discussed and ways to improve the article. To say one is ignoring other issues while expanding another part is hardly a good argument and I dispute the need to edit the section down to fit your weight issue to the size of the page. Please explain how you feel the section with reliables sources for claims ontop of primary sources and all speculation attributed properly per Wikipedia policy is undue weight. To the article? That is not what the policy of weight is. The section of quotes is needed as this section deals with the printed word of each of the subjects being quoted. Weight given to the controversial nature of Packer's words in print in "To young men only" and Quinn's for his highly published opinion against it. I can see reducing the last quote box to standard quotes as being more encyclopedic for the "Other LDS pamphlets".--Amadscientist (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Second...what POV issues?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hardy

The Hardy reference is a seperate reference and I mistakeny removed it as not finding his name with Quinn. So the two are seperate crticism's of the Sermon and pamplet. I will try to get better information on the exact information.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

POV issues

This article is basically another attempt to include a pot-pouri of issues together that have neutrality problems. If this article was about truly about Mormonism and violence, it include Mormonism's relationship with violence as a perpetrator, a doctrine regarding punishment, doctrines against violence (more frequently mentioned in talks than BKP talk from the 70s), and as a victim of violence. --Trödel 20:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That has been discussed before. I believe the argument was made that the article did not need to be balanced in showing the violence to the LDS church when there is an article for that. There is a history of violence from the church and followers that is documented history just as the violence from Catholcism and other religions are. The need to show a counter argument would be in direct context to each sub heading or subject. I think the main issue the article makes is the Mormons have theirheri own unique history of violence that has formed what they are today. The reformation etc., and many other events are a part of the history and there is likely to be argument against mdocumentationtion here. Could you be specific where there is POV?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not consistent with the development history of this article. If the article was exclusively about violence Mormons instigated, facilitated, or perpetrated the article would have the name Mormon violence (as you once tried to change the article name) but it doesn't. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Mormonism and violence is more encyclopedic and isconsistentnsistant wdevelopmentlopement history of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me understand what you are saying here, "the article did not need to be balanced" - is that correct? --Trödel 03:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that. Why do you ask?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So you didn't write the statement attributed to you above (emphasis added)

That has been discussed before. I believe the argument was made that the article did not need to be balanced in showing the violence to the LDS church when there is an article for that. ...

It is obvious that this is a WP:POV Fork and the prior deletion discussion, if you review it, found that there were POV problems but they should be fixed rather than deleting the article. However, here it is 3 years later, and when attempts are made to introduce NPOV language they are opposed and the current POV in the article is expanded (just look at the recent expansions of the language that gives undue weight in relation to the article. --Trödel 04:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Once you finish cherry picking the words from my posts you are free to get to your point at any time.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is a WP:POV Fork that has assembled various issues that are sufficiently covered in the appropriate articles. If the article was an attempt to discuss Mormonism and violence (as it purports to do) it should summarize the relationship between violence and Mormonism including violence against Mormons and Mormonism. There is undue weight issues. There is discussion of Aversion therapy as if it was a procedure only used at BYU. Basically the entire article has had POV issues for 3+ years without resolution.

I really don't understand your position (and admittedly tried to use a "gotcha" to draw it out from you), but I honestly don't understand your position, nor do I understand how the development history of the article is consistent with a NPOV presentation. You seem to state that there was an argument before that the article wasn't balanced but it failed (but I'm not sure why). --Trödel 13:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This reads more like a National Enquirer article than an encyclopedia. What do temple penalties have to do with this subject? Was their violence that is directly related to this covenant or are we trying to sensationalize the topic? Precent-ismlk about recentism and imbalance. The whole article sucks (I am sorry) the whole article seems to be less than scholarly.

I could go into the article and delete History down through Oath and it would only improve the article. How about we start there?

The Thomas Coleman murder is a nice bit of stretching. Where in any of the temple covenants (which BTW has its own article) does it address black and white marriage or inter-racial marriage or a prohibition of such. This reeks of someone pushing an agenda.

The gay agenda is just a joke and it has always been a joke. Look, if anyone forces themselves on you, then some will react violently to such a proposition. Women have been responding so since time immemorial. HOW IS THIS MORMON OR UNIQUELY MORMON? Gods, I hate this type of stupidity. I hate talking about it because it is just so damn stupid!

Frankly, I see no unique information this entire article adds to Wikipedia. It is an axe piece and nothing more. I just don't see why it should be saved given that it adds nothing, NOTHING, that is not already covered twelve ways to Sunday in a number of other articles. --^StormRider 07:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

God Loveth His Children

In God Loveth His Children, the LDS Church advises that "[a]ssociation with those of the same gender is natural and desirable, so long as you set wise boundaries to avoid improper and unhealthy emotional dependency, which may eventually result in physical and sexual intimacy. There is moral risk in having so close a relationship with one friend of the same gender that it may lead to vices the Lord has condemned."[20]

As a primary source it has no context to violence, just homosexuality and is POV. It's inclusion is disputed.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)