Talk:Anti-Mormonism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anti-Mormons vs Critics of Mormonism

I think this section illustrates my objection to the title of this article rather well: either the article will end up with severe NPOV issues in having to decide who's an Anti-Mormon, and who's not, or will have to go so far out of it's way to address the issue, that the specific title would be too narrow. I suggest once again that the rewrite should give serious consideration to re-scoping and re-titling the article. Alai 06:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

This article will define what an anti-Mormon is and what it is not, and what they believe, attack. I hope that this article can quickly do this and then move into the historical aspects, such as [[1]]. I've created additional sections of the different types of "critics" as seen - but only to categorize and eventually end up their own article.
Am I missing your thought here? I wnat to make sure I'm addressing it properly. -Visorstuff 19:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
How will the article define it in a way that's reasonably NPOV? My on-going fear is that this turns into an exercise in separating out the "good" (honest, merely misled or confused) critics of Mormonism from the "bad, Anti-Mormon" critics (dishonest, deceptive, malicious). With the best will in the world, that's not going to be a successfully neutral exercise. Alai 15:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, we are going to end up with multiple articles now. The term "Anti-Mormon" is too prevelant within the Mormonism community to leave untreated. If we do not, others will after us. I'm dissapointed with the name switch without any discussion. I go on vacation for a week and come back to "opposition to Mormonism" while I am the main re-writer of this article. I'm quite upset that this was not done properly, but will get over it. The point of the article is not to accuse people's intent, but to define the term as used by mormons and self-proclaimed anti-Mormons themselves. There is a difference between Antis and the rest of the opposition. -Visorstuff 20:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason to make them separate articles. I certainly haven't said "make no reference to or treatment of" Anti-Mormonism, the article should clearly do so. But are you really planning to confine yourself to Anti-Mormons that self-describe? That's certainly not been the gist of the discussion on the topic to date, or what the current draft rewrite says. I proposed a page move about six weeks ago, see the talk page of the parent article, as well as the comments above, so while I didn't perform the move myself, I certainly don't feel it was exactly done "over-hastily". Alai 16:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Anti-Mormon page needs serious help. As most of ya'll have noted, neutrallity on this topic is difficult for active Mormons. Well, as a Scholarly Christian that is Anti-Mormon for logical, historic, & theological reasons, I will try to help ya'll clean up your anti-mormon page. But, you will have to give me some lee way. I am new to Wikipedia, and I may make some blunders along the way. I believe Visorstuff fixed my fix on the First Patriarch already. Thanks - My fix, fixed the error and added a new one. Wayne

Hi Wayne - welcome aboard. We look forward to your edits. One word of caution - this page is about the Anti-Mormon movement and anti-mormon activism, not a comprenensive listing or sharing of anti-mormon arguemnts, or rebuttal page. It should discuss who they are, why they think what they think, and how they compare with non-Mormons, critics of mormonism, etc. It should also not be a place for Mormon apologetics or anti-mormon apologetics. It should be historical in nature, as previsouly discussed. I think the article is outlined well, it just needs to be filled out and referenced. The citation part is what has slowed me down.
Do you really consider yourself, an anti-mormon activist, or rather a critic, or one that disagrees with Mormonism? to me and the definition of anti-mormonism, there is a big difference between waving publicly preaching (or violence, or debating) against Mormonism, and not agreeing with it. -Visorstuff 17:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Wayne, it is interesting that you find it difficult for "active Mormons" to be neutral. Yet, you go on to state you are a Scholarly Christian...I assume you think Christians have a history of being completely neutral? Let's clear up a major misunderstanding, all people have an agenda and there is not a single group of people that has a pristine reputation for neutrality. As a scholar I would assume this would have been at the forefront of your discussion. The fact that it wasn't leads me, and I assume most people on both sides of the topic, to assume you may have difficulty being neutral.
Before I go further, please understand that I am a bit more touchy than many of my associates and friends (on both sides). I have become overly impatient with those Christians who think they know something of Mormonism, but have only read the most laughable of anti-Mormon literature. They neither understand Mormonism and worse, they have only a limited understanding of Christianity and its origins and history. I value and respect true critics of Mormonism, but I detest anti-Mormons. A critic is a student of truth and strives to understand all truth wherever it is found while an anti-Mormon cares not for truth, but only the destruction of another faith by whatever means necessary.
I deleted your intro because I felt it was your rather narrow/personal interpretation of the definition of anti-Mormonism. Let us strive to remove our personal agendas and state what is so; leave the spin to politicians. Also, know that we all value your input. We all make blunders here; I unfortunately make far too many that causes me to apologize often. Please continue to edit, but don't take other edits personally. I hope you are both a critic and a scholar; your contributions will be highly valued. Cheers and good luck. Storm Rider 18:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Visorstuff Thanks. Well, I reckon that depends upon how you define 'anti'.

Rather I am the more scholarly Christian type. In my theology, I do not have the time to go after a fight. Altho' I would not consider preaching the Truth to be in the same realm as physical violence. Critic in the sence of scholarly disagreement, yes. Critic in the sence of theological difference, yes. But, I am not an 'activist'.

However, I am presenting a paper on Mormon Soteriology, over 20 reference works (I think 10 of those were differing forms of a Joseph Smith). Whew! Talk about difficult. Trying to figure out who is who in Mormon history/theology takes a specialized degree!

OK - SR, what gives? what was merely POV? Not that I could document it, but I have. Mormon history seemed to have elicited pain in you rather quickly. As for my objectivity? I have not assumed that you do not know anything about Mormons. But, if you don't know nothin' about them, I can get you some tracks by Chick . . .

And yes, that was a cheap shot. Considering that I have struggled through 2 different Joseph Fielding Smiths in the last week, and I have never read a Chick track . . . and it is late, I was being gracious.  ;) So, why was it not NPOV? Especially when compared to the article itself? Regards, Wayne El guero

I think the problem is that you were re-defining anti-Mormonism. It is a movement, and an adjective to describe a type of activist. We spent weeks coming up with the definition that is there, and definitely don't feel it should be applied to all critics or disagreers of Mormonism, which is what your edit reflected. Yes some mormons use the term as a blanket, but most do not. We also pulled from similar statements on the wiki about anti-semitism, anti-catholic, etc. as well as the few academic papers written on the topic. That is why its NPOV, as it was too broad and not in line with anti-mormon activism or the anti-mormon movement. Again, there is a difference between disagreeing with mromonsim, or Criticism of Mormonism and defacating in public on temple garments at the conference center in salt lake during general conferece - or shooting, lynching, etc a mormon (which still happens). For example, I may not agree with catholic church sentiments, and may even discuss with co-workers, but I am not anti-catholic. -Visorstuff 14:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
El guero, you miss my points entirely. Visor already amply responded to one of your questions on POV. As far as your understanding of Mormon history or theology, your statements will have to speak for themselves.
There is a saying, if you want to understand how a watch is made you do not go to the town butcher or baker, rather you go to the watchmaker and ask. My impatience is with those who think they know what Mormons believe and regardless of how many times they are told they are in error, their mind is closed and nothing changes their mind. They are wholly separated from truth, the Spirit, and reality. I sincerely doubt that you have knowledge about Mormon history that is beyond me or unknown to me.
As for preaching the "truth", I would be more than happy to hear your convictions or your testimony of Christ and His Gospel, but please let's not think we are the sole possessors of the truth. That is a task left best to the Holy Spirit. Peace and Merry Christmas to each of you. This is a time when all can unite and simply rejoice in the birth of our Savior. Storm Rider 19:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I do have the pleasure of preaching Jesus Christ tomorrow.

"Please let's not think we are the sole possessors of the truth." Do you really want me to answer that?

This forum asked for help, I provided that assistance. You were offended, could this reflect some of what the Mormon definition of 'anti-Moromonism' is referring to?

If the term is a Mormon only term, then the lead sentance should say so. Otherwise, the article is NPOV.

Instead the article starts out by defining anti-Mormonism as a LEGAL opposition to Mormonism. That places law abiding Christians in the same league as someone defacing Mormon temples. That is a POV. Unless, we are legally supposed to deface temples. Did I miss that ammendment? El guero

This conversation doesn't seem to be productive. I am glad you are preaching Christ and I am sure everyone else is impressed with your opportunity to do so. I get the impression that you might like the sound of your own voice while doing so. If you think you are the sole possessor of the truth and are replacing the Holy Spirit, then I suspect you might have more to learn...I would direct you to seek out the Holy Spirit and ask his opinion; you undoubtedly will be surprised by His answer. I have always found Him to be enlightening. We find the truth, but we are never its sole possessor. I was offended by your reference to only Mormons having a problem with neutrality. To be blunt, it was a narrow minded thing to say and demonstrates an even smaller mind. If you are a scholar worth his salt you would know better than to make such a broad generalization; I encourage you to cease. That quality of help is not needed on WIKI and certainly not in the world. HOWEVER, you are invited to continue to edit because we seek to constantly improve each article. I hope that you will succeed in being a benefit to all of the readers of WIKI and in particular this article. Good luck. Storm Rider 07:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

SR,

"I was offended by your reference to only Mormons having a problem with neutrality."

SHOW ME where I said that. I think you said that.


To wit: "As most of ya'll have noted, neutrallity on this topic is difficult for active Mormons." It is easy to overlook things, but just as easy to read our entries. Storm Rider 23:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

SR,

I did not say "only Mormons having a problem with neutrality." But, now that YOU have said it for me, would you like me to agree with you?

I would prefer to disagree with you and stay by my words rather than to assume the connotation that your words would carry.

The more active one is in their Religion the more difficult it is to be neutral on matters of faith. 68.116.136.72

Okay Bozo, you obviously are not interested in topic and have a personal axe to grind. Find somewhere else to do or you will find yourself extremely frustrated with WIKI. We strive to produce article that meet certain standards which appear beyond your grasp. Given the diverse background of our editors we seek the best knowledge of each. However, when an editor such as yourself refuses to read their own edits and own up to their own statements it is obvious they are not interested in the topic or intelligent discussion. Let's move on. I hope you find success in other areas. Storm Rider 00:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

SR

If 'Bozo' is your best shot, you need to get a life. Ad hominem attacks are beneath real scholars. It is evident that you do not wish this article to abide by the stated NPOV policy. That is a sad reflection upon you and those that attempt real scholarship here on wiki.

SR,

I really do not know why you are so touchy. "Before I go further, please understand that I am a bit more touchy than many of my associates and friends (on both sides)." But, you have attempted no dialogue and have only used diatribe. I would expect that is why you end up feeling hurt by others as they attempt to deal with sensitive issues.

Friend, I wish you luck. But, you should notice that my usage of 'you' and 'your' was significantly less than your usage of the terms, because I was trying not to add fuel to your fire.

You have been hurt by people. But, that was not my fault. Nor, have I said anything that deserved the diatribe that you threw at me. 

(unsigned by User:66.169.151.165)

EL G -- you wrote: "Instead the article starts out by defining anti-Mormonism as a LEGAL opposition to Mormonism" Umm. I'm missing the point here. How much anti-Semitism, or anti-black or anti-catholic opposition is illegal. Not much. Not today. Perhaps activism was more illegal historically, but again, I'm missing your point. Criticism and active activism against are two seperate topics. I disagree with Catholic teachings, but I do not go out and burn Rosaries, or preach over the pulpit as to why they are all going to hell, pugatory or whatever. If the anon who is still responding and EL G the same person, then this discussion is not only fruitless, but you seem to purposefully be trying to keep the conversation alive. Let's move on. -Visorstuff 00:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I second Visorstuff's suggestion to move on. Any discussion here should be about the content of the article, not about each other. As far as the definition of "anti-Mormonism" for purposes of this article, please read the proposal to merge this article with others elsewhere on this Talk page. It's all been hashed out before.

Forgive me for straying from the subject of this article for a moment, but this looks like another golden opportunity to encourage anyone who wants to contribute significantly to use a registered username, which not required, is part of Wikipedia:Etiquette. And just as a favor to me, I'd rather see StormRider called by his full username instead of SR, as those initials first made me think of another user who, as far as I know, has never contributed to any of the Mormonism-related articles. Thanks everyone. Wesley 04:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Exact definition of the term "Anti-Mormon"

I'm still very unclear as to the exact definition of the term "Anti-Mormon". As a result, much of the rest of the article is a bit fuzzy to me. Much of it applies to groups that could ostensibly by called "exmormon". So, I thought I'd start another heading in this Talk page to specifically address this crucial topic. Yesterday I posted a much longer post here, but after I thought about it, I've cut it down.

The way the article is written right now, it seems that the difference between an "Anti-Mormon" and a "Critic" boils down to this: Anti-Mormons make their views public, while Critics generally keep their mouths shut.

I'm not convinced this is a good criteria. Can we discuss other possible definitions?

Personally, I still think there Exmormons, Critics, and Anti-Mormons are all in the same pot, with the term "Anti-Mormon" used to pejoratively label obnoxious critics. KevinM 20:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The title "Opposition to Mormonism" is still better than anti-Mormon. I removed some phrases that include the word prejudice. For me, pointing out flaws in the historical evidence of the Book of Mormon is no more prejudiced than pointing out flaws in astrology, creationism or flat earth theories. That doesn't mean that I am prejudiced against Mormons. I'm even fond of them in many ways. Applying scientific methods to Mormonism's claims is not prejudice. Nereocystis 00:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that either one works. "Opposition to Mormonism" implies a nice, ordered debate. "Anti-Mormonism" implies stringence and belligerence, but is difficult to define. The nice and orderly debate is covered in "Mormonism and Christianity". What about the spectrum that is strident and belligerent, up to and including mob violence because of religion? What about the other "Anti-" articles? Val42 02:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
There is a reasoned argument from an atheist viewpoint, which shouldn't be limited to Mormonism and Christianity. Many Mormons find that approach anti-Mormon, though the people making the argument may not.

The bottom line is that the term exists. We should use cultural norms - so the article needs to be "anti-mormon." it will eventually be written, may as well define it similar to anti-semetism, anti-catholic, etc.

Second, perhaps i need to rework the term/definition. Its not that anti-mormon activists (I'd rather use the term activists and anti-mormon publications than anti-mormons or anti-mormon literature - as that is how it shows up in scholarly work) are public (although that is a part)- it is that they hate and then do something about it. much like those who are against those of other faiths or races. If I personally don't like jews, that is one thing, but if I'm anti-semetic, that's another. it states that i'm engaged in activity of some sort. does that make sense? -Visorstuff 17:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you're on the path to a better definition. But you'll get a lot of objections to the word "hate". How do the other "anti-" pages deal with those who don't want to be put in that category? Val42 04:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
The opening paragraph is a meshing of other "anti" pages definitions. The second definition is mine. I think it follows the norms.

Rsduhamel posted the following on Talk:Opposition to Mormonism:

The original purpose of this article was to call attention to a phenomenon that is noteworthy and that most people are unaware of. That is that there is a small number of people that constitute opposition to Mormonism that is similar to anti-Semitism and racism. It is not particularly noteworthy that there are people who disagree with Mormon doctrine or church policies. If you announce that the sky is blue you can be assured that somebody will disagree with you in some way. However, it is noteworthy that Mormons attending semi-annual conferences in Salt Lake City have to pass through a gauntlet of vocal, abusive protesters. Likewise, the general public visiting LDS temples (prior to dedication) are met by anti-Mormon picketers. It is very rare but Mormons are occasionally met with picketers when attending their Sunday services. Aside from the fact that there are those who disagree with the church, the phenomenon of anti-Mormonism is worthy of an encyclopedic article on its own simply by virtue of being something interesting that most people are unaware of.
What would happen of anti-Semitic protesters picketed synagogs in the U.S.? How would the community react to them verbally abusing men, women and children and blowing their noses into yarmulkas? I think they would be met with public outrage. Wouldn't the same public at least be interested to know that hard-core anti-Mormons do what is tantamount to the same things.
I think that anti-Mormonism, per-se, merits a separate article from mere "opposition to Mormonism". At least those few who have made a life goal of opposing the Mormon church and have become highly visible in their tactics merit special emphasis in an article about those who merely disagree with Mormon doctrine or church policies.
As time permits I plan to try to reorganize this article to differentiate between anti-Mormons and mere dissenters and possibly split it back into two articles. I hope I don't step on any toes in the process. In the mean time I welcome any who agree with me to work toward that goal also. Rsduhamel 06:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I redirected him to this rewrite page and I'd hoped that he'd express this view on this page. I hope that he won't mind me copying his comment to this page; It is very good and very relevant.

Let me summarize what I get out of his comments: anti-Mormons are those who protest and picket in ways that are, sometimes to often, loud, abusive and (to the people they are addressing) sacriligeous; and sometimes sacriligeous actions. I'd like to add that this has historically been much more abusive, up to beating, tar-and-feathering, and killing of the objects of their hate. I think that using these two sentences (or significantly similary) would work as the basis of a definition of "anti-Mormons". But do we spell it with or without a hyphen?

Those who disagree doctrinally, whether being truthful or not, should be put in a different category/article. Val42 19:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Why are the people protesting? Are they protesting against LDS policies, for example, the LDS policies regarding gays? Are they protesting against the refusal of LDS to allow any Boy Scout troop to allows gays and atheists? These protests against specific policies do not constitute anti-Mormonism, in my view. Mormons are free to change policies, and free to disassociate themselves from the official LDS view, though perhaps at risk of excommunication. Nereocystis 17:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I feel we are splitting hairs here. If you've been to a General Conference, the majority of picketers are telling people they are in danger of losing their salvation (going to hell), fighting against the church, saying the church is off-base - which are all anti-Mormon activities. A minority are picketing policies on abortion, gays and women. However, the majority is stereotypical. There is always an exception to the rule. To say one needs baptism to be saved is true enough, but what if one is allergic to water? To say that you have to married to become a god is true enough, but Jesus and the Holy Ghost apparently qualified to become gods prior to earth - and the chance to get married. To say that if you kill you cannot receive exaltation (its against the ten commandments) is true, but what about Nephi and Laban, Moses and the Egyptian slave overseer, or Paul aiding in Stephen's death? Peter cursing of those who broke the united order? Do all KKK members burn crosses in the front yard of blacks? Do all Anti-Semetics believe the holocaust didn't happen? Does gravity work in all situations? Do all Anti-Mormons shoot eight year old boys in the head so they won't "grow up to be a **** Mormon?" There are always exceptions to the rule and sterotypes in religion, culture and science. Let's not get too much in the weeds when we are dealing with stereotypical behavior and a movement such as Anti-Mormonism. It is true enough and not written as an absolute, but as an example of behavior. -Visorstuff 18:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Organization of Article

I made some edits to the article, but they were minor. I'd like to address the issue of structural organization of this article. It doesn't have a clear structural organization. I think that it should be organized either historically or by the sub-classes of anti-mormon (that is still being debated). If organized historically (which I prefer), it should be about what occurred at each location that prompted the moves, including the Extermination Order in Missouri. It should include how splinter sects that remained in the Mississippi region were treated as well as what happenned to the main body that later settled in Utah. It should then cover Johnson's Army, the Mountain Meadow Massacre (while inexcusable was a reaction to anti-mormonism), polygamy and other things. This can lead in to modern anti-mormonism, which borrows from (dubious) earlier sources, the semi-annual protests at Temple Square (and surrounding areas) and the very vocal persons who used bullhorns on the Main Street Plaza. Val42 02:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

as i started working the article, i think a "history of anti-mormonims" should be spun out into its own article - which is why teh "historical" is all lumped together. (and needs to be fixed, frankly).
Lets keep the sub-classes as the main organiation - am game with what order. thoughts? -Visorstuff 17:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
While it may eventually get large enough to deserve its own article, the historical aspects should start out in this article. It can be spun off later once there is enough material. I still prefer the historical arrangement. Though we need to hear from some more people; two different opinions do not a consensus make. Val42 04:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Works for me, and I agree with you - do you want to start refining what is there? -Visorstuff 16:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement of arguments

In reading the original article, I noticed that the sections on Doctrinal Opposition, and on Actual and Alleged Doctrinal Differences, were rather disorganized and one-sided. These sections are mirrored in this rewrite by the "Anti-Mormon Tactics and Trends" section, which is undeveloped at present. I am unqualified to make any statements about this topic, but I would like to suggest a structure and system for addressing the topic.

The attacks upon Mormonism which this segment intends to address are of two kinds - logical and organizational. The logical attacks attempt to disprove the claims of Mormonism; the organizational attacks seek to make the practice of Mormonism inconvenient. These are related, but fundamentally different; I suggest that the topic be divided into two topics along these lines.

The section which addresses logical attacks upon Mormonism should break these attacks down along logical lines. I think that the section on opposition logic should be divided into at least three sub-sections:

  • Arguments which are invalid because of mistaken premises. The incorrect argument should preferably be cited from a direct source, and countered with a direct citation which demonstrates the mistaken premise.
  • Arguments which are invalid because of logical fallacies. Preferably, the description for each such tactic should identify the specific fallacy(s) committed.
  • Arguments which are valid and correctly formed. These should be limited to internal contradictions within the Mormon religious system; comparisons between Christian, Catholic, and Mormon theologies are relevant, but do not belong on this page. Links to the relevant pages would be more appropriate.
  • Practically, we might do well to have a fourth section for arguments of indeterminate validity. That is, arguments which are logically consistant, but whose premises cannot be verified. Hopefully, these arguments would be moved to one of the other three sections as appropriate citations are located. The Digital Gabeg 22:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Again, this sounds like an anti-Mormon article written by a Mormon. We do have some ex-Mormons who actively participate in writing these articles, but that's still not the same attitude. I don't know if we will be able to avoid this since it will be unlikely that we will get an editor that holds an Anti-Mormon position that will write the article. Unless such a person shows up, I guess that we'll have to do the best that we can.
However, I think that we should strive to write the article as much as possible from an anti-Mormon point of view while remaining NPOV. I know this sounds like a contradiction. What I mean is that the layout and organization should support the anti-Mormon POV, with section(s) for rebuttal below. (But maybe that was what ruined the original article.) Val42 00:03, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I will invite some non-mormons/exmormons to view this page. I hope the page is a bit one-sided on the Anti-side. The point is to tell what anti's belive now how the LDS view them. It should state what issues they have with mormonism and not explain a counterpoint. Counterpoints is what got us into this mess to begin with. Each argumement against mormonism such as Archaeology and the Book of Mormon should link to its own page for further discussions of both arguments. No need for rebuttals in every wikipedia page. As I flesh out the remaining issues, let's make sure to present from this point of view. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 13:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Val42. The arguments should be split up. The header needs a statement that the term is used for people who make logical arguments against Mormonism, and even against some who consider themselves Mormon. Is D. Michael Smith an anti-Mormon, for example. See John Weldon's Response To Mosser/Owen and FARMS for some discussion around the topic of anti-Mormonism. Nereocystis 14:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree they should be split up, but not how The Digital Gabeg suggests. For example, I think that drawing a link between the Spaulding manuscript or Ethan Smith's View to the Hebrews have been sufficiently debunked, however, they are still popular arguments. So showing which ones are debunked or false claims is an excersize in inviting even more controversy to an already controversial page. You can pull up the book on the Book of Abraham by Larson and throw out half of the arguments because he quotes folks who we now know shouldn't have commented as it was not their area of expertise, however, it is still popular and still used, and therfore has some validity. Val42, do you have other suggestions on breaking up the arguments? How about Secular arguments [2], Phycho-biographical arguments, cultural arguments, doctrinal arguments (which are very view in reality), historical arguments, etc.? Again, lets not judge the arguments, but place them all in their full context and let the reader seek out additional information. On further reading, I was confusing Val's Comments with The Digital Gabeg's. Val, I think we are close on our thinking. Let's figure out a good way to outline them all. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 16:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The tricky part is that not all of the people writing in the categories consider themselves anti-Mormon. For example, Signature Books doesn't call itself anti-Mormon. I suspect that even Mormons don't consider all of its books to be anti-Mormon. How do you split up intent? If an otherwise believing Mormon publishes a book describing the historicity of the Book of Abraham, is that anti-Mormon, or just Mormom history? Nereocystis 18:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I may have missed a point you were making? I've said nothing about intent anywhere have I? Rather I've taken the definitions of Anti-Mormonism from combining similar Anti-Semetic, Racist, Anti-Catholic pages. I agree that in each term when you are dealing with a people who in large measure feel they are being discriminated against, that they label more people as discriminatory than actually are in reality. I don't think that most of Signature Books stuff is "Anti" nor do many others. But rather they consider it misguided. I do think that the link above does describe a relatively new phenomenon of secular criticism - and the public nature of how its done makes it anti, etc. CAn you clarify what I feel I've missed here? -Visorstuff 18:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The link you gave above Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism, says, in its first paragraph:
I see, he added, that Dan Peterson will be speaking about "secular anti-Mormonism"--in other words, about "Signature Books."
If FAIR calls Signature Book anti-Mormon, then I think Signature Books is commonly called anti-Mormon. Signature Books really doesn't fit in the same category as anti-Semitic. Nereocystis 19:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, however, I was using the article as a point for a relatively new movement - secular anti-Mormonism. This is typically not the signature book folks, but others outside - I would lump tom murphy and the guy down in under in this group, as well as other non-religous folk. I disagree with lumping signature books in with anti-mormonism. Nor would I include that in this article, as it is not appropriate. But thanks for clarifying this with me. -Visorstuff 20:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC) (actually, Tom Murphy fits into this group, not because of his DNA findings, but because of his vocal nature of how "uninspired" the LDS leadership is and calls for it to change. He was fighting against church leaders about his research, which is different that believing in his ressearch - make any sense? The other guy is an obvious "hater" of the Church and makes no apologies for fighting against the church -Visorstuff 20:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC))

However, since FAIR uses anti-Mormonism to include Signature Books, this definition should be included. Then we have the definition of anything that the LDS church doesn't like is anti-Mormonism. Some people, I believe, use anti-Semitism in the same way, for example, that opposition to occupation of Gaza is anti-Semitism. The use of anti-Mormonism in a context like this makes me nervous. Nereocystis 23:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Could we provide a few references for the term anti-Mormonism. I suspect that many people believe the term is similar to anti-Semitism, but use it for anything disagreeable to the Mormon hierarchy. Nereocystis 14:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Currently this rewrite negatively portrays "anti-mormons" by refering to their actions in the first sentence onward as prejudicial and actively hostile as did the orginal Anti-Mormonism article negatively portray mormon beliefs and practices. Both articles are written in at least partially advocate tones and need to conform to more factual underpinnings of these movements. The whole "Purpose of Anti-Mormonism behaviour" is a bit of supposition mixed with a lot of condemnation from the mormon church including that saying such actions will "haunt" them their entire lives. I realized that if I added my little expertise into the science expounded by Mormon archaelogists and the hostility they receive in the maintstream acedemic world that it would just fan the flames more. Before any rewrite of this subject will be succesful a delineation must be proffered that is more thoroughly based in the historical roots of Anti-Mormonism. This type of criticism needs to address facts of any prejudice before accusing all of Anti-Mormonism to this very day of it. I agree what happened in places like Missiouri was horrific and I think that starting out with examples like that may satisify Wikipedia's need for neutrality with many Mormon's want for recognition of their past, present and future sufferings but I want to make it clear that does not redress the current accusatory tone here. --Rakista 17:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Rakista, I understand that this article may seem anti-Anti-Mormon, however, we are doing our best to share the history and culture of anti-mormonism, not provide a rebuttal for the various arguments they have. This is not an article for apologetics from either side. How can one positively portray Anti-Mormon behavior? How can anyone positively portray Anti-Semetic behavior, or Anti-Catholic behavior? Of course the basis of anti-Mormonism is controversial, becuase it is intolerance. This article is not created to talk about how dumb or smart, but to list the history and arguments of anti-Mormonism. Many arguments seem silly, such as the thousands of theiroes and "coincidences" for Smith's alleged plagerism of the Book of Mormon, and others are very strong arguments such as archeaology, and DNA. (not mere criticism, but the anti-Mormon behavior of it). The purpose is not o judge these counter-apologist arguemnts, but rather place them in the context of a movement against the Mormon people. As stated throughout the article and here, there is a difference between disagreements with a religion and intolerance toward it and its peoples. -Visorstuff 23:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I think anti-Mormonism can be portrayed either positively or negatively, and certainly neutrally. anti-Mormonism is not like anti-Semitism, or even anti-Catholicism, because Mormonism isn't (yet) an ethnic group. (Catholicism isn't really an ethnic group anymore either, although it maybe was in the past, when some Americans thought Catholicism was more "baked in") It's more like anti-Communism: an opposition based primarily on ideology, rather than ethnicity. And the proof of that is that it goes away when Mormons lose their faith, or supposedly "accepts (the Evangelical version of) Jesus as their personal savior". Anti-Communism, anti-war, anti-cloning, and other ideology-driven "antis", are not generally considered negative. In fact, many such "antis" are worn as a badge of honor. COGDEN 01:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if "anti-Mormonism" can be worn as a badge of honor, we haven't yet found anyone who does. Lacking anyone who holds such an ideological position stepping forward, we will have to do the best we can. Val42 04:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'll have to admit that there aren't many anti-Mormons who like the term. They prefer euphemistic terms like pro-Jesus, Mormon reclamationist, or anti-cult. Kind of like how anti-abortion activists like people to call them pro-life. But we can't use these euphemisms as the title of the article. COGDEN 05:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Uses of Anti-Mormon

What does anti-Mormon mean. I am collecting a few references:

Nereocystis 16:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Areas needing work

There are a few areas which need work before publishing the article.

References are needed. Who defined the term?

References to secular anti-Mormonism, which is used to describe activities contraries objected to by the Mormon church, such as calling Signature Book anti-Mormon.

Anti-Mormonism is first described as active hostility or prejudice, but then it is described as:

It includes opposition to Mormon doctrines, ideology, organization, history, policies, culture, leadership, influence or political or economical influence

What is opposition to Mormon history? This may include Signature Books, if they include a book which is not approved by the LDS Church. Opposition to Mormon leadership may include disagreement on same-sex marriage or gays in Scouts. This is not prejudice against Mormonism; it is a careful decision to oppose some of Mormonism's actions.

On the one hand, anti-Mormon seems to be prejudice, on the other it includes any opposition. By first mentioning prejudice, all disagreement is implicitly including under prejudice. This makes the article seem POV to me.

Unfortunately, I don't have a simple suggestion on how to change the article. Nereocystis 18:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Bringing the article online

Is it time to bring this article online? Of course, it's not perfect, but what article is. I think it's an article that has to stay, simply because the word anti-Mormonism is widely used, and there needs to be an explanation of what it is, and how the word is used. I also don't think this affects our pending discussion on the (Criticism of Mormonism page). Regardless of whether or not we have a criticism page (which, of course, I oppose), there will also have to be an anti-Mormonism page, because criticism and anti-Mormonism are not the same thing. I don't even think that anti-Mormonism is a subset of Mormon criticism, because there is anti-Mormonism which is not criticism, just opposition. If we drew a Venn diagram, we'd have two partially-overlapping circles. COGDEN 19:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I still have a few issues, but not enough time to resolve the issues. The article is good enough to be moved to anti-Mormonism. Then we can decide how to merge, extract, delete and cross-reference the other articles. Nereocystis 23:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I would also favor getting this article on line sooner rather than later. It may not be perfect, but it is better than what is already there. Let's go for it. Storm Rider 06:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to bring it online, while keeping everything else constant. If, after it gets more visibility, we decide differently, we can always delete or merge it. COGDEN 18:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your Venn diagram: much of the described "Anti-" is not "Criticism" at all (but rather abuse of, protest against, etc). However, I think the until-recent title did essentially cover the whole topic. Ideally the two articles would be merged (back) there, including a section on the term A-M and its application. Alai 03:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
If you are talking about Opposition to Mormonism, I think there would be a problem merging criticism and anti-Mormonism there. That's because some Mormon criticism is not Mormon opposition. There are many loyal critics of Mormonism. COGDEN 03:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but that article isn't about "criticism" in that sense at all. It's one of the iterations of the former "Anti-Mormonism" article, subsequently moved to "Opposition", rewritten some more, and lately moved to "Criticism" -- and hardly editted much at all in the process. Having the two separate articles up in parallel is perilously close to a "POV fork", though I'm certain that's not the intention. (I understood the plan was for a re-written "Anti-" article to eventually replace the then "Opposition" article. Alai 03:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Saints

The above section title and the below text was added to the "Anti-Mormon" page:

Since the name of the Church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, not "The Mormon Church", and that members are latter day saints, or just saints, it would be more accurate to call those who are against the Church Anti-Saints.

This may be a more appropriate term, but it is not the term used in "the wild". "Anti-Mormonism" is the term used, so that is the name of this article. Val42 05:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Postrational Anti-Mormonism

I have added a tag to Postrational Anti-Mormonism, proposing that it be merged into this article. If the text is usable, it should be incorporated into this, possibly as a separate section. Please agree/disagree here.. - N (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the merge is approriate.Mikeblas 08:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, merge the articles; I don't see a purpose for the two separate articles. Storm Rider 17:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge them. I hope everyone realizes that there is more text in the discussion on this one topic than in the bodies of this topic and the topic it may be merged into... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.171.12.108 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 January 2006.
  • Merge - Not lengthy enough to merit its own article, but would work well in the larger one. Deadsalmon 00:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I've done the merge. I wasn't quite sure where to put it, but I'll leave that you guys to sort out.. - N (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Blind obedience

I deleted the following text:

  • The concept of "blind obedience" on both sides - members who discount antis solely because they are anti and they feel they should ignore them, don't really have a testimony and still don't question (anti's call this blind obedience), anti-Mormons who don't do own research, and who rely on others research instead of doing their own and generally don't know what they are talking about/are easily proven wrong/use old issues. (Mormons call this blind obedience).

This sounds like someone's personal views. Does anyone have any references to support this viewpoint? btw, I tried to make a comment in the article using "<>"; what is the correct way? Thanks. 18:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You can comment out a piece of text by surrounding it with <!-- hidden text --> - N (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality!

This is, by and large, the most disgusting wikipedia article I have ever read. --Davidknippers 07:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Amen, on that. --Kmsiever 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As always, constructive criticism would be welcome. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

If you go back into the article's history you'll see why it is that way. At one time, it was a very POV article, and the result that you see is an outline of items that need to be filled out and addressed to be more up-to-date. It is very FAR from perfect, but this was an outline created based on the most current up-to-date research on the topic available. Yes, it needs clean up. Are you willing to help? -Visorstuff 19:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Again, it was created as a sandbox, but editors called for it to go live because of the POV issues and edit warring with the previous version. You'll find all of this in the history of the article. -Visorstuff 22:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger with "Criticism of Mormonism"

Proposed, to prevent cross-talk, that all comments on this be consolidated in one location, at Talk:Criticism_of_Mormonism#Proposed_merger_with_Anti-Mormonism

Biased article

Did what I could on an emergency room basis, and I will be back to reread to because there are about five or six places that absolutely require citations. There needs to be a section on anti-Mormon pathology, since it is drummed into the membership as a persecution complex. Will be back to oblige sooner or later. Anon166 17:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the article isn't biased, but the above edits were possibly even more POV. I have reverted the changes, although there were a few changes that probably should have been kept, but I don't have time to pick and choose. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Possibly? If you don't have the time, then don't revert a valid without comment. Please comment on each and every edit. Your limited time is not therefore my problem. Anon166 18:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Much better, Anon166. Thanks. --Kmsiever 18:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Anon166, the process on WIKI is when you are going to rewrite the entire article as you have done, you have a responsibility to propose your edits and seek a consensus. This is not necessary when making small edits; even you would have to agree that those were not minor edits.
Further, to revert your edits is to return it to the original state. If you disagree with the article, present your thoughts here and then move forward. It is frustrating, we are all frustrated when working with such a diverse group of people, but the end product will be an asset to WIKI. I hope that is an objective for all editors. Storm Rider (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Stormrider, I hardly rewrote at all, the removed material in question cannot be justified, but there is some good information, but it just needs to be balanced or neutral for NPOV. This would never have passed your grade in kind on the Exmormon article you so vehemently opposed word for word. I can hardly appreciate the hypocrisy in seeing this article so blatanly biased and one-side, and self-serving. Was it you who linked the Exmormon to here? Anon166 23:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I might also add that there is a "cleanup" citation at the header, and many here feel the article is biased, and extremely so.Anon166 23:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Still needs to be cleaned up; not all of your edits were removed only those that skewed the article. I have not done many "links" in my day, but we should be able to review history to determine who did. I may have, but I have not recollection; I just don't normally do links. Storm Rider (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Postrational anti-Mormonism?

So, some Mormon invents a word not in the dictionary and uses it to describe a phenomenon spelled with a hyphen? I don't think this research is understood by anyone but Mormons, since it "coins" a new word for their opposition, because the wikipedia article on post-rational is at odds with using it this way. Since Mormon apologists object to any balance for this described phenomena as counter-assertive to Mormon proselyting against them (in other words, Mormons are guilty of the same thing), we need to remove this section, because it gives the stamp of approval on some lone research. If anyone neutral or rational can explain its value here, then so be it, but as it stands it is clearly original self-serving internal Mormonism apologetics and against NPOV policies, and this from one who enjoys a new theory, but one that isn't religious POV. Anon166 01:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks at though it is trying to avoid the term "unfounded" anti-Mormonism, based on unfounded beliefs originating from elsewhere. Of course, if they used the term unfounded anti-Mormonism, that would be implying the rest is founded. Maybe "anti-Mormonism based on indirect sources" would work. Anon166 02:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I know you have a strong aversion to anything Mormon or any Mormon individual having any meritorious opinion about anything; however, you might want to study WIKI NPOV standards and reputable references. I am not familiar with this scholar's research, but it would be viewed as highly POV to discount it simply because a Mormon did the research. First, you might want to look at this individual's qualifications for his research. I know it would be shocking that he might actually be educated and still be a Mormon, but I have met "one" educated Mormon in my life so there might actually be another. Who knows the buggers reproduce like rabbits so another one might have entered an online college and got a degree. Second, it is not original research to quote scholar's research. Note, that I have not said this fellow is reputable, I don't know. I will join you in researching him. Question, when you quote indivdiuals critical of Mormonism, do you think you are being self-serving? We all have to learn to use the same standards for ourselves that we require of others. Third, I suspect you might admit that you are rabidly against anything to do with Mormonism; you may want to recruit an objective, third party to discuss some of your edits. The worst thing that might happen would be the gaining of a friend. The best might actually be that you gain a higher degree of objectivity. Storm Rider (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Stormrider, I don't read all of your posts for this reason, and now I have another reason, because your credibility is done with me. You whined mercilessly on the Exmormon page for your religious POV to qualify every statement, declared it a MESS! as it was improving, like an apologist who assumed it was a debate. And now we see that you only serve that POV. This article will most certainly be reviewed for POV, and it will be like finding honey in a hive to the objective reader. But, don't let that be a reason to avoid cleaning it up for another 8 months. BTW, I don't know what you are talking about concerning educated Mormons. Education means nothing for inventing your own doctrine. And there are educated hacks out there who invent their own opposition to make themselves a buck or two off the paranoid masses. Thanks for not explaining any of it.Anon166 16:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Stormrider, your POV has led you and others to conclude that I'm antiMormon, which proves my point that it is a pathology of Mormonism, not relating to critics, because I never gave you any reason to believe this other than oppose your doctrine inclusion of POV on a page where you thought you belonged. But now Exmormon is linked to here, whereupon I read the article, and noticed it was including people like me in their who-is-our=enemy labeling program without bothering to note any of the arguments. And here you illustrate this approach. It is a fact that Mormon authors coach missionaries in their literature to be intolerant of all other religions, to antagonize those preachers and members in debate, and turn people away from their false faith, note the irony. This enables missionaries to go out and set up portable information kiosks outside of holy shrines worldwide. And what do they say when people complain? Call them anti-Mormon and pretend they had no role in provocation. Anon166 17:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It is quite possible that StormRider assumed you were anti-mormon the same way that I did. I looked at your contributions to Wikipedia and found that you made a few edits to exmormon, followed by a ton of POV edits to anti-mormon. (Just because a conspiracy theory seems correct, that doesn't mean it is.)
Please keep in mind that it is possible that there are Mormons out there who are different than whatever ones you have run into. As a matter of fact, anti-mormon literature played a part in my conversion to the LDS church. It was clear to me that whoever was behind such stuff certainly wasn't very Christ-like. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Which of my edits here did you consider POV pushing? Anon166 01:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Each editor has a POV; it is impossible to evade having a point of view. However, as we strive to write scholarly articles we likewise strive to be objective. Clarification because you have made an assumption and distinction I did not make. My statment was: "I suspect you might admit that you are rabidly against anything to do with Mormonism; you may want to recruit an objective, third party to discuss some of your edits." I have not named you anti-Mormon, I have stated you are rabidly against anything to do with Mormonism, which is evident by your edits, their tone, and the generalizations you make about Mormons. Are you rabidly against anything having to do with Mormons? To you see yourself as objective in this area? If my personal opinion mattered (it doesn't), I would say you are either a harsh critique, but it would not surprise me to find out you think of yourself as anti-Mormon. Knowing our own personal POV helps us to seek other opinions and acknowledge that sometimes we definitely need others to review our work. The best editors on WIKI seek the assistance of others to review their work, especially where their personal POV might come into play.

Your edits speak for themselves just as mine do. To attempt to deny our own POVs is silly and makes those who try to be all the more a fool and disregarded on WIKI. Storm Rider (talk)

To whoever that wrote this, I think you automatically dislike anyone who is a former Mormon, because they have rejected your beliefe and won't accept what is most important to you, and you don't have the NPOV to deal with it objectively. Or it may be more complex than that, perhaps they symbolize overcoming a simple struggle that you can't. I don't know which, but the reaction is common enough, as anyone can read here. Mormonism doesn't even offend my beliefs for it to be an issue because I don't believe in any religious authority from God, and I don't think God is irrational or stupid or jealous, therefore I have no zeal or counter-dogma to share, merely a neutral POV policy to privacy and belief. On the POV side, I only care about the facts and useful information to all of humanity--not just useful to those of a particular religion or race, which is a view never at odds with Wikipedia on any entry.
My role here on this entry is to balance a bigoted article with fair and honest statements to both sides while remaining neutral to specific interests. I'm qualified, partly because I know some of the statements are either false or propaganda, from firsthand knowledge, by reasoning and experience, mostly from being programmed to once see it exactly as described here. Furthermore, The issue here is a detectable POV versus neutral POV, and it is possible to report the information and have no detectable point of view and be scientfically detached or unbiased (neutral). But you disagree, and seem to deny the goal of NPOV because it offends your mission here. You simply are rewriting the rules and justifying biased edits by projecting your inabilities onto others, and you think you can analyze anyone else objectively while firmly denying the NPOV to do so.
It is a fallacy to deny NPOV, or that having a perspective makes everyone the same, because we are talking about some more valid than others, and the degree to which we are honestly aware of it and the degree to which we defer to crticism of it. This means your choice of entries might serve your perspective POSITIVELY if you stuck with Mormon history, and not the controversial issues that offend you. Because, if something offends you, it may be a defense mechanism for you to simply attack it because it may symbolize your own struggle with it--and you would have no other outlet for this religious struggle as we all seem to know. However, as it is, you seem to honestly admit to some contempt of Wikipedia by openly promoting a Mormon POV. Anon166 00:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, we both agree that the other is rather narrow minded and incapable of being objective. Yes, I have read how you and the exmo crony gang is sensitive to any claims of NPOV. However, it can prevent everyone from doing exactly what they want regardless of any sense of balance. Further, I have read how anyone suspected of being a Mormon is accused of using NPOV fallaciously (that might just be a sign you have a phobia; do you hear voices also? There I go again taking personal pot shots; seems like you and I could go round and round.)
I wonder, should we focus on the article or should we continue this bit of personal jousting? It is fun, but not very productive. How much free time to you have? I don't need to work (one of those successful business things) so we could make this really interesting. So what do you want? Cooperatively edit this article or just continue taking personal pot shots to show how intelligent we think we are. Choose. For me, I would choose to cooperatively edit the article. Storm Rider (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate to break up your character assasination fun here, but none of this is helping the article. Anon166, your claim to be NPOV is laughable, and the more you protest, the sillier you sound. I have seen StormRider make many reasonable edits in the past, softening POV posts in both directions, but your edits don't fall into that category. And all these "citations needed" tags are cluttering up the article. I don't always agree with StormRider, but I have always respected his opinion.

And, BTW, I have no opinion on ex-mormons, which (IMHO) would be as silly as to have an opinion on mormons. Each person is different and has their own reasons for their own beliefs. What bothers me are the ones who, as are described in the article, can't seem to let others believe what they believe without attacking them. I have seen many new converts (and ex-mormon is a type of convert) strongly try to justify their new religion and/or justify their separation from their old religion. How long they keep it up depends on a number of factors, but hopefully they will eventually get over the transition and calm down. I wish you well. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 12:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Bill, which edit of mine was POV pushing again? Anon166 14:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Stormrider, we both can't be right. I don't work with apologists because they don't represent Mormon honor and have a will to poison knowledge or science, and justify "lying for the Lord" to save their case. They can't lose, so they have figured, because nobody ever gave them credit for anything. I can't compete with that lack of conscience nor low standard. To me it's just church sanctioned bad behavior no worse than the Danites who murdered or collected tithes from disbelievers. No wonder they are threatened by Wikipedia. BTW, I still can't tell the difference between you and Visorstuff, too much unsaid collusion and misspelled key terms for me to be comfortable with. Seeking a "consensus" on an article already written by one person who needs persecution for a testimony is not anti-consensus? (See notes inside of edit text). We need to get someone else to coordinate edits and begin all over again. I think anti-Mormon is being mischaracterized here anyway, because only Mormons use it as an epithet, borrowed from an old political party when the term "anti-" was more common. Anon166 14:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Your above comment is a good example on why you are not NPOV. You have no problem lumping all Mormon apologists into a single category. (I said that StormRider has softened POV in both directions - pulling both the pro and the con closer to the middle. I haven't seen any evidence of that from you yet. I would love to be able to retract that statement if you would only give me the chance. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thus sayeth Bill. Anon166 16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey Bill, for an example of what I'm talking about, see his last edit. He wants a cite for where abusing the term "anti-Mormon" was encouraged after I wrote that it is not discouraged. If I need to point out his error to you, then just say so. The false dilemma mindset in action. Maybe you have the quote for where it is discouraged? Anon166 16:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon166, let's start with this edit that you have brought up. This sentence first read:

However, most Ex-Mormons and critics of Mormonism are not appropriately labeled as anti-Mormon as explained in the preceding paragraph.

You added a clarification to the end of the sentence:

but this is not discouraged in Mormonism.

Your addition brings in a new tone to the statement. The previous sentence was clear; Exmormons and critics of Mormonism are not appropriately labeled anti-Mormon. Meaning they have to do something else to be appropriately labeled anti-Mormon. Your addition does nothing but change tone. Does Mormonism encourage labeling Exmormons or critics anti-Mormon? My request for a reference is because your statement infers that because they do not discourage it, they must encourage it either blatantly or provide tacit approval of it; neither of which is true.

My preference would be to delete your addition so that sentence reads as it did originally. If not, then provide a reputable reference that Mormons don't discourage it or that they encourage this stated action. Storm Rider (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's called balance. By the way, you are not in charge to tell Mormons if what they do is appropriate or not if they disagree while something is not discouraged. Report the facts that apply. By the way, you are making a logical error in demanding I report a non-statement. I would expect this from you. Ask Bill to explain, I would like to see him say something NPOV for once, I know he knows. Anon166 18:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

On another issue, I can not find a resume on Glen Chapman. He appears to have written several things, but at this time I can not verify creditials. Has anyone else found something. The creation of terms is rather common; without it we would be in a sorry state trying to explain technological advancements in society for the last 20 years. Just because it is a new term does not seem like a particularly worthy reason to delete it. You might want to explain how NPOV standards apply; I would focus more on reputable references. Also, you may want to ask for assistance from admins or sysops given that they are the most skilled in these areas. Storm Rider (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Resume? Let's just stick with a reference. Somebody messed up here. This is a weasel word and it isn't used in anti-Semitism or such. Original coinages are also against policy if they are only cited here. By the way, I like academic terms, just not selfish one's that label a mindset that applies to anyone under the sun, except Mormons (by the way it's attached to an epithet only). Anon166 18:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Mormonism/Archive_1&oldid=97008456"