Talk:Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Although there may be other pages that include information about anti-Mormonism, I think it merits a separate page. So, please don't delete this page and redirect it without careful consideration.

I have found some anti-Mormon bias on other pages that discuss aspects of Mormonism. I strove to make my definition of anti-Mormonism as neutral as possible. Please don't turn this page into a debating ground on the merits or lack thereof in Mormon philosophies. Please make your comments as fair, and non-inflammatory as possible.

---

Not 12 hours after I started this page I received the following link by e-mail.

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/antis/200304.html

I had originally tried to differentiate anti-Mormonism from the likes of anti-Semitism but there are obviously some anti-Mormons who do deserve to be put in the same category as anti-Semites. I rewrote the introduction to this page accordingly. Rsduhamel 04:26, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Question usage of "Mainstream Christian"

I would question the accuracy of some of the statements, or perhaps just the choice of words. For example, take the sentence, "Mainstream Christian churches almost universally teach that Mormonism is a cult and unchristian." I would agree if the phrase started "Fundamentalist Christian churches" or even "Conservative Christian churches." But in my years spent in United Church of Christ, ELCA (Lutheran), and United Methodist congregations, I have never heard Mormonism described as such in any of those churches.

I use "mainstream" to mean those denominations in the US with large memberships. Of those, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the Southern Baptist doctrine describes Mormonism as a cult. Nor would I be surprised to hear that the Roman Catholic church thought Mormonism outside of their definition of Christianity. But the ELCA, or the Presbyterians, or the Methodists, or the Episcopalian church? I don't think so. (Ironically, my use of "mainstream" would probably include the Church of Latter Day Saints itself, and it certainly doesn't denigrate its own teaching.)

A major part of my skepticism arises from the fact that "cult" is a word both highly-charged and poorly defined. Outside of fundamentalists, few theologians will use it except in the neutral sense of "a system or community of religious worship and ritual." Use of the word "cult" usually casts more light on the speaker's religious beliefs than on those the speaker is talking about.

Not to say there aren't members of mainstream churches who are anti-Mormon. But if the author is going to assert such a universal statement, s/he needs to back it up with some citations from the governing documents of the denominations or statements from the churches' conferences or hierarchies to show that anti-Mormon beliefs are part of the official dogma and practice of those churches. -- anon 20 July 2004

It should not be necessary for a church to officially, specifically condemn Mormonism. It would be enough for that to be the prevalent teaching. For instance, as a teenager in the Assemblies of God, our Sunday School class did a unit on cults that included the Mormons. Before that, I think either my catechism or Sunday School classes at a Lutheran church included Mormons among its list of cults. (I think it was LCA, before the ELCA merger.) I don't know for sure whether the Orthodox Church in America has "officially" singled out Mormonism, but many churches carry on display a set of pamphlets published by Conciliar Press (which is under the Antiochian Orthodox Church's American diocese); one of these pamphlets is entitled "Cultist at my Door" and focuses its attention on Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm sure that the Catholics publish similar literature. Beyond this, many churches simply teach that one must believe, for instance that the Bible is the only Christian scripture, and would therefore implicitly exclude Mormons from their definition of Christianity while including most other denominations. Same could be said of certain other fundamental teachings concerning the nature of God, and so forth. Wesley 16:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good copyedit TacoDeposit. However I think you'll find that there are in fact several LDS churches - I used the plural deliberately. In the section where you pointed out that Mormons only think some Christian beliefs are wrong, I also agree, but it is at a pretty fundamental level. As far as I am aware, LDS still consider meanstream Christians to be 'apostate'. Again my personal experience is that that is what the Mormons who arrive on your doorstep will say. DJ Clayworth 15:24, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I am aware that there are several groups that have broken away from the church Joseph Smith founded. The largest of these is the Community of Christ, which no longer refers to itself as latter-day saint or Mormon. The others are too small for anti-Mormons to concern themselves with. I think using Mormon church in the singular is appropriate for this article, as anti-Mormons are only concerned with the "official" Salt Lake City church.

Regarding your second statement, did you mean to say "I also disagree"? I agree that Mormons consider mainstream Christians to be "apostate" in a sense; but though they teach of a Great Apostasy, I find that they generally reserve the epithet "apostate" for break-away groups and outspoken ex-Mormons. I also say they do not believe "all" Christian beliefs are wrong. The mindset of Mormonism is that mainstream Christianity is partially correct, but lacks the "full picture."

BTW, I was raised as a faithful Mormon and was a missionary for two years. Now I am ex-Mormon atheist. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:56, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

After posting the above, I noticed you changed a single instance of "the Mormon church" back to "the Mormon churches." I have changed it to "Mormons". I hope that's okay. I like your other edits. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 16:02, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

This article is deeply lacking in content and has a near-complete absence of detail. Tragically I don't have any information to add; the best I can do is to flag it as a stub and hope someone else fixes it

---

The first section of mormon beliefs claimed by anti-mormons are sort of right (as opposed to the second section where they are totally wrong). How should these be pointed out like was done in the second section? Val42 11:07, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I had the same concern. I tried adding the parenthetical references (not disputed) to the "allegorically" accurate points while adding (not supported or mentioned) to the completely wacky stuff. The core logical problem is that the central focus of the article is one of heresay, falsities, or invective. As such, it proves difficult to call one thing "accurate" and another "false"-- if someone actually believes in one of these points, then it is "accurate" to them. I think the only dividing line we can draw is between that which is acknowledged by church writings, and that which is not, but even this cannot work, because of the scisms between the LDS Church and the various "breakaway" sects. Who knows what those people are saying? This whole topic is chattle in the wind. Davejenk1ns 13:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no churches that encourage the dicrimination of the LDS Church, and to my knowledge, there are none that consider it a sin. However, as the old LDS saying goes, and such is generally the case with all churches, "The Church is true, the people aren't." It is a practice by their own will to be Anti-Mormon. --R66-Y 18:47, 28 Jan 2006 {UTC)

Expansion?

After a very quick look, this article could stand some work, but does anyone still think it's in need of expansion? If so, could you spell out what's lacking? If no answers in a week or two, someone should remove the expansion macro from the top of this Talk page. Wesley 18:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I am afraid that this article reads like an apologetic tract. I am particularly concerned with the Exaggeration section and the way it uses the topic of the Begetting of the Son of Man. It says that Mormons clearly do not believe P about the Begetting. But the reality is Mormons are not clear in any way about what they believe about the Begetting of Christ. Everybody, anti-Mormons included, is free to read into the quotes what they will. Perhaps this section could be re-worked as a section on Helpful Extrapolation. It could present the canonical sources for the alleged teaching (Nephi's vision of "the condescension of God" and "the mother of the Son of God after the manner of the flesh", McConkie-type quotes that "Only means only, Begotten means begotten, and Son means son") and then tell that anti-Mormon's typically extrapolate a reasonable interpretation of Mormon teachings and express the extrapolation on a way that is foreign to Mormonism. To be fair, this could also be called illuminating the obvious. Tom Haws 05:39, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are several parts that could be reworked and improved, and that's a good example. I was just wondering if the expansion tag can be removed. Wesley 17:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support. I think that this article is beyond where it needs the expansion tag. But I do think that it still needs some refining. Val42 00:42, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Tom Haws 23:11, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

No objections in nearly a week, so I removed the expansion tag. Wesley 17:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Two or Three

Before we get in to an edit skirmish on the main page, let's hash this out here. As far as I know, God directed TWO groups to leave Jerusalem for America: Lehi's group and Mulek's group. There was a third group of people that were directed to America: Jared's group, to use the shorter name of the brothers. But Jerusalem hadn't been founded yet. They came from wherever the Tower of Babel was being built, which I am thinking is in Babylon, or modern day Iraq. If I'm missing a group, then it should remain three. If I'm not missing a group, then it should be two. Val42 00:42, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. Tom Haws 23:12, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Doctrinal Debate

After I'd made the other section answering the doctrinal distortions on the article page, I read somewhere that there is already a page about the doctrinal controversies between Mormonism and Nicean Christianity. If this is so, then we should move this section to that article. First, is there such a page, and second, should we move this debate to that page? Val42 00:42, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

The page you're thinking of is Mormonism and Christianity. There is some overlap, especially with the "Actual.." and "Alleged Doctrinal Differences" subsections. But, that article tries to simple identify the similarities and differences, whereas this article is discussing the phenomenon of opposition to Mormonism. So I think it might be better to cross reference them to each other rather than merge one with the other. Wesley \

In general, the doctrinal debate section reads like a Mormon rebuttal of its critics. Can we work on presenting both the claims and counter-claims without the article sounding like its taking sides? This also runs the risk of making the whole thing more stilted and awkward sounding, but I think it can be done. Wesley 17:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As you know, I agree. Perhaps we can keep our attention on this for several weeks and see what we can do. Tom Haws 23:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-anti-Mormonism?

I'm not knowledgeable on this subject, so I hesitate to make large edits (though I plan to at least fix the statements about what constitutes a logical fallacy). However, this article seems to have recently gained a lot of Anti-anti-Mormon POV, which consists largely of "counterpoints" to existing generally moderate (if not neutral) statements, and a lot of flat assertions and anecdote. What evidence or authority is being cited here? Are Anti-Mormons really as predominantly "deceptive" as these edits seek to portray? I'd have thought there was plenty of clear doctrinal water between LDS and evangelicals that they could mutually vituperate all day without needing to resort to such, but the article gives very little space to that. Alai 03:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who has been adding much of the material you refer to. The term "anti-mormon", from a Mormon point of view (or at least mine) is pretty much limited to deceptive techniques. I am a convert to the Mormon Church. Shortly after I started looking into the church, a friend of mine gave me a number of anti-mormon books. My first reaction was to stay away from the Mormon Church, but after looking closer at the arguments, I discovered much of what is covered in this article. I have given a number of firesides (talks) on the subject, and have a (non-Mormon) brother who keeps me supplied/entertained with additional material every so often. ;^) You are correct that there are plenty of clear doctrinal differences, but material that fits into this topic is more emotional than logical. At least, this has been my experience. Maybe I am the only person that thinks this way. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 04:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I may be just suffering from definitional confusion. So what do LDS call Frozen Chosen types that say "you're all going to hell because you believe in salvation by works", or Catholics that say they're "not Christians" because they're tritheists, etc? (i.e. immoderate stance and rhetoric on a doctrinally factual basis?) I'll look into this myself if I get the time, but I'm sure there must be knowledgeable types to hand who can corroborate this readily (one way or another). I certainly still feel there should be some citations as to specific claims or tactics you say or imply anti-Mormons use. Feel free to quote your sibling if he's a notable anti-Mormon, by all means. :) (Or a source for such literature, perhaps more likely.) Alai 06:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that this problem was beginning to happen; i.e. that this is starting to become a debating article. (See my comments before this section.) I know that I started this because I didn't like how the anti-Mormon statments went unchallenged. But I agree with the above statement that the actual, distorted and wholly-fabricated doctrinal disagreements are overwhelming the rest of the article. Mormonism and Christianity has some of this type of (doctrinal differences) information, but I don't think that it is the type of article to turn into a debating ground. I suggest that we take a few days to search for such a page already existing (about this doctrinal disagreement). If we find one, we should condense the current information and redirect people to the expanded page. If there isn't one, then we should create such a page and do the same thing.

But any anti-Mormon claims that are brought up should be substantiated with references to the source literature. Val42 06:42, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, without source literature some of the more outrageous the anti-Mormon claims could just be straw man arguments. Wesley 17:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am unaware of any article aside from Mormonism and Christianity that would address your concnerns Wrp103 and Alai. I think a good page to start would be Doctrinal disagreements with Mormonism, however, I'd rather incorporate most doctrinal differences in the individual doctrinal articles in the wiki - such as Golden Plates, Archeaology and the Book of Mormon, and Apostolic Succession. Know what I mean? -Visorstuff 17:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So maye it will help if we can talk about what this article might include? What is important to say about Anti-Mormonism? Do we touch on tactics and use specific doctrines as examples? I personally think a historic approach is best. In Year A, P did K. In Year B, it was popular among Q-ists to do L. In the late Cs, M was increasingly addressed by Mormon apologists, and so R began to focus on N. Tom Haws 23:21, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the doctrinal debate has overwhelmed the rest of the article. There are legitimate differences between Mormon doctrine and Nicean Christian doctrine. This is well covered in other articles, some of which are cited above. These type should be cross-referenced in this section of the article.

But there are those who are willing to resort to distortions and made-up Mormon "doctrines". These were the statements that I was addressing that started the expansion of the doctrinal disagreements section. If this part is to remain, then I think that it would be better to put it in a separate article. A summary should appear on this page with a link to that other page. We may better be able to refine the material in that context. Val42 04:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Looking myself at a lot of Anti-Mormon literature and other forms of media, I think it's a laughing matter how innaccurate/deceptive those books are. It just racks my brain trying to think of some way these books could actually convince anyone that the Mormon Church is a cultist, false doctrine, devil-driven communist organization. Am I right, or am I right? --R66-Y

It's true that much, probably most, anti-Mormon literature is flagrantly deceptive. However, there is also some that most Mormons would probably regard as deceptive, but that are based on well-substantiated documentation. For example, in the fifth Lecture on Faith (which used to be canonical scripture as part of the Doctrine & Covenants), from 1834-35, Joseph Smith says the Father is "a personage of spirit", the Son is "a personage of tabernacle", and the two "possess the same mind", which same mind is the Holy Spirit. But if an anti-Mormon tract says Joseph Smith taught a more traditional trinitarian Godhead in the early days of the Church, and the earliest published accounts of the First Vision that refer to the Father and the Son having separate physical bodies are from later, most Mormons will probably assume that it is simply a deceptive effort with no factual evidence. With some ardent Mormons among the regular editors here, parsing the purely deceptive - such as "The Godmakers" - from the arguably viable interpretations, is bound to be a non-trivial exercise in POV attenuation. - Reaverdrop 06:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Bleah

This article is a mess. It is the worst I've seen within the WP:LDS project. I keep forgetting to work on it. Sigh. What in the world is an apologetics section doing in this article? Can we discuss the approach of this article? I am pretty sure it was started as a discussion of anti-Mormons activities, and not as an argument forum. Tom Haws 22:29, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. In my mind this should be the outline of the article (which may be controversial in its own right):

• Definition of an Anti-Mormon/anti-Mormonism
• differences between anti's and non-Mormons or critics of Mormonism, Why they have become Anti's - usually a reason - even if honest overt opposition

• Paid/unpaid/exmormons (professional versus lay verus bitter)
• Prominent organizations and individuals who are anti
• list of discredited anti's and why they are discredited - (charles larson (may have mixed with another larson), "Doctor" Philastus Hurlburt, Howe, etc. false degrees, using old, incorrect research, non-addressing of avaialable sources).
• list of reliable anti-mormons and how they present (tanners, etc)
• Tactics they use (most already done in text)
• patterns between works - see Nibley's classic talk (how to write an anti-Mormon book [1]
• The use of the media (video, internet, seminars, live protests)
• are Christian churches "anti" or just in non-agreement, doctrinal differential, etc.
• root issues
• topics that have been generally dismissed or no-longer relevant (brodie, two first vision accounts, polygamy, Godmakers 2 farce, etc) (with links to the appropriate articles to give more detail about the topic and fuller discussion)
• recent hot topics/research (DNA, Nibley's daughter, Kraukhauer, New smith research, temple changes, etc) (with links to the appropriate articles to give more detail about the topic and fuller discussion)
• "Classic" anti-mormon works and why - EB howe, brodie, Kingdom of the Cults, Godmakers, and Mormon empire (is that the name?)
• cultural influences and studies (rise in anti activity in an area led to higher baptism rates during the 80s, studies show most had stronger testimonies or few had loss of testimony of members after encountering them. if antis really wnated to win, they's leave mormons alone and let mormons destroy themselves quote, etc.)
• Exmormons - Why Mormons feel this is a fulfilment of Smith's prophecy of leaving but not leaving alone
• the cultural mormon phenomena, and the rise of exmo's in this segment.
• BH Roberts, Hugh Nibley, McConkie, FARMS and FAIR's involvemnt in anti-mormon "debunking"/defending
• the rise of lay mormon apologetics
• 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).

How does this look? -Visorstuff 00:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great from where I sit! I say we wait for some more buy-in from the other project members who are wathcing this page, and maybe point an RFC to your list. Tom Haws 18:31, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Agree! If you look at most of the previous discussion, this problem has been recognized. There hasn't been a concensus as to how it should be restructured. The restructuring that you propose is much larger than any of the other proposals and is probably what is needed. I agree with the structuring that you have proposed. Let's get this done as soon as possible. How long do votes usually take? Val42 23:44, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, if you have the energy and know-how, go for it! Tom Haws 19:39, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a great way to go. Nice work! wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 14:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like this, but could we make a seperate article on apologetics? I think it's an interesting topic in its own right, and not merely a reaction to anti-Mormonism. Possibly other topics too. As discussion is currently headed, criticisms might be removed entirely so the article can focus solely on anti-Mormonism. I think this is a good thing. Cool Hand Luke 07:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will be working on the re-write. I'm nervous to do a Mormon apologetics page for a number of reasons, however, I think you are right that the mindset of most Mormon apologetics needs to be explained. That said, please don't think that this page will not have criticisms or arguments against Mormonism, but rather it will place them in context of Anti-Mormonism and treat the arguments nuetrally without having to try to explain them away. -Visorstuff 17:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider's edits

Storm Rider, can you talk us through the thinking behind your most recent edits? On face value it looks like they a) undo my attempts to clean up one paragraph (the edit you summarised "grammer"), b) seek to minimise doctrinal differences between LDS and "mainstream" (which I think is contrary to a clear article, since it makes unnecessarily mysterious the matter of what anti-Mormons might be so bothered about in the first place (for example, "one God" clearly means something very different to LDSs, but you've deleted this entirely rather than clarifying it), and c) ups the ante on "anti-anti-Mormon" rhetoric, which I felt there was too much of in the first instance. What on earth does it mean to be an "honest but deceptive" a-M, for example? Even the honest ones, aren't? (To be honest I wonder if some passing anon had made these, I wouldn't simply have already reverted throughout.) Alai 21:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I can't see you two getting bent out of shape at each other, can I say at the outset that there were good elements in both versions, and that either way, I think the article is far from close to within tweaking range of where it needs to be? Bottom line, maybe we should invest in some serious bold, large-scale editing before talking too much. I am the last one to encourage an edit war. But if we can establish first of all that we are friends aiming at a common goal, direct, bigger editing may be a good way to start. If I get a chance, I will do some direct editing, but to be honest, I am a little down on the whole article as it stands (as I've said before) and just haven't felt inspired with a solution. Anyway, that's just my crazy, unsolicited two cents. Tom Haws 22:38, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

We need to finish building the article as outlined above. I will take as an action, but will not have time to work on for a couple of weeks. -Visorstuff 23:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you both. I might have been quicker to revert if the previous version had been any good, either... The plan for a major rewrite in the previous section sounds good to me, wish I could help out more substantially. Alai 04:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To begin, I really don't like this article and I am really not sure what the end product is supposed to be about. To answer a few questions: 1) my edit to deceptive, but honest was a lame edit to bad language. However, there is merit to those "scholars" who do not understand Mormon doctrine, but attempt teach their flock about it. They are honest men and women, but only have an understanding of Mormonism through the writings of poemics. They may be honest, but they are certainly deceptive and should know better. Mormon doctrine is often defined by other Christian sects. Unfortuntately, they get a seed of the truth right, but then try their darnedest to present it in as scary a possible manner as possible. For example, the Godhead. The Book of Mormon is clear that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one God. We define this as the Godhead. The Trinity teaches the same thing; however, the major difference is one is definition of a triune God, whereas Mormons believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate beings. Another would be the definition of God and god. LDS doctrine believe that we are the children of God and if we accept Christ, complete required ordinances, and make Christ the Lord of our lives (i.e. obey his commandments and live in a manner where the Spirit resides with us) than we may return to live with our Father. We fervently believe in the the promise of Christ that we will be co-inheritors with Christ. Anti-mormons have a field day presenting these two doctrines in a way that causes, as one writer here has stated, other Christian to feel our doctrine as "abhorrent". I feel compelled to edit those writings that are too polemical. Another example is this "junk" (I am restraining myself people) about quoting hymns to attempt to explain doctrine. This is the kind of junk from polemical writers foist on their unlearned flock and then preen themselves for their adulation in uncovering the wicked Mormons that can in nowise recieve the saving grace of the Savior because of their outlandish doctrine. No that I have vented, have I come close to answer your questions and please forgive me it has been a tough Friday. Storm Rider 22:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You sound like you feel like I did last week on this issue. The end point of the article is to define what an anti-Mormon is, some historical background and how they work. This is different than an ex-Mormon, a critic, a scholar or preacher who disagrees on opinion of doctrine, etc. (although they should be mentioned). It is not a place to discuss all of the arguments, not a place to be an apologist, but to discuss current Anti-Mormon trends, research, tactics, debunked critics, root issues. In short, this is their page, and it should neutrally reflect their stance on Mormonism, just as much as the Church's page should neutrally reflect Latter-day Saint's world view. -Visorstuff 23:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the "one God" thing, SR (I remain confused, but at least my confusion is in the realm of Mormon terminology, rather than the article text). I don't know how fair your "field day" characterisation is: certainly historical Christianity is littered with bitter divisions on the nature of divinity, so it's not immediately obvious to me that this is "bad faith" criticism (though of course it doesn't preclude it being). Though I'm also unclear on when "legitimate critique of the LDS movement" becomes "anti-Mormonism" in the first place. (Would this article to be easier to write if it were cast in terms so as to include both, I wonder?) V., indeed so. (Though I'd say "page about them" rather than "their page" as such.) It's fine to mention dubious tactics and discreditted arguments, but please be specific, and let's not make that dominate the structure of the article.) Alai 07:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Visor, are you saying that the purpose of this page is to present how Anti-Mormons develop their literature and the ways in which they present their point-of-view? That sounds more than acceptable to me and worthy of being included; however, being able to present some of the worst forms of Anti-Mormonism will be very difficult. The well where statments such as "mytical underwear" (who comes up with this crap), Jesus and Satan are brothers, and the celestial kingdom only for Mormons should be mentioned, but it would be difficult to do (for me) except in a very belittling fashion. There are Anti-Mormon writers and scholarship that I believe really adds to the diversity of religion and are honest critiques of the Church. However, the majority of it goes beyond polemics and enters another realm completely. As I reread my comments I have switched my opinion. It could be a great article if the majority of the article were fashioned on how the worst of this stuff is developed, desseminated, and believed by readers. Storm Rider 00:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is merely part of what I'm saying. This is not about the arguments used themselves, but rather who they are, why they fight, how they fight and where they fight and then discuss the ramifications. For example, until the early 1900s, there were a few dozen anti mormon arguments - about polygamy, MM massacre, Solomon spaulding, money digger, three and eight witnesses denying, etc. Then in the early 1900s most of this was proven wrong, so they turned to psycoscientific methods - Brodie's work, theories about making up the book of mormon, drug usage by smith, how he made up dreams, masonic connections, and the morphing of belief over time, and magic. Then most of that that was explained away by Mormon historians/scholars, including Nibley, Smith and McConkie. In the early 80s with the popularity of Godmakers, recent claims about the book of Abraham (by a false professor), Hoffman's document's being found as forgeries destroyed the magic world view, and books like kingdom of hte cults brought back a sort of retro-anti-mormon style that brought back many of hte old arguments, journal of discources quotes, solomon spaulding, comoros, polygamy, etc. Now they had the benefit of distance of time on their side -- the old arguments were revived, but now they seemed "historical" and more realistic because they were useing "old" documents - even though most of the arguemnts are the same as previously disproven. In addition, with the mass printing of works like kingdom of the cults, etc., it made widely avaialbae much of this (mis)information to people of all walks of life. it quotes and uses Ezra Booth information, although there has never been a more unreliable source for reliability. He didn't even use half-truths and speculations. now in teh mid 2000s many of us are predicting a rise in cultural attacks. (This is one reason why I think we need to include so much informaiton about Mormonism-related culture in these articles) and a revisit of the magical world view, pyschoscientific analysis and a continuation of pushing "old" sources. for example, John Krakauer's work is hardly anti-Mormon in intent, however, it uses such unreliable anti-mormon information in his research and as the foundation of his theses as to destroy his credibility with scholars - he may be quoted by the media as an expert on the FLDS, but he knows very little "actual" true information and will never be quoted in a scholarly work because he is seen as unreliable - he quotes disproved and irrelevant info. however, he addresses many of the cultural perceptions of Latter-day Saints about suchthings as polygamy coming back (which has never been prophecied or taught or the teacher should have been "removed from their place"). The cultural issues will become much more an trend in teh next few years, combined iwth the previous two or three movements.

But this is just a thought as I'm working on the re-write. Hope this answers your question. Visorstuff 01:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having just discovered Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Semitism I heartily recommend them for a quick bit of perspective on what this might become. Tom Haws 05:47, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider, this is confusing me. You're telling me that the Book of Mormon states that God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one God. On the contrary, mormonism teaches that they are three separate beings working together. But then, you say after a few sentences that Mormons believe that they are separate according to their doctrine. It may have just been a misprint, but try to be more clear next time. Thanks. --R66-Y 18:56, Jan 28, 2006 (UTC)

Masonry, underpants

I don't see mention of freemasonry or mystical underpants. I also don't see discussion of Theosis#Deification_in_Mormonism or other important details. Thoughts / comments? Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 14:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, those have been important staples of anti-Mormonism, and a finished article will need to address them. As we have been saying above, this article is pending a major re-write. I am wondering if changing it to a skeleton instead of leaving the current form might be more inviting to improvement. I did that with a new Energy development article I created, and it seemed to develope quite well along the outline I sketched in. (though hardly a controversial subject). Tom Haws 18:07, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

How about we edit a Anti-Mormonism/temp file, and then exchange it w the article when there is concensus to do so? I think this is a pretty good article, but it reads more like an essay from the mormon church about anti-mormons than it does an article from an impartial encyclopedia. I think much of the content here would be good as rebuttels, but we need real criticism, of which there is plenty. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 19:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this article isn't Criticisms of Mormonism. This article is supposed to be about Anti-Mormonism, though as you point out, it does in its current state end up as too much of a pro-Mormon rebuttal article. This has been the consensus opinion. We have generally agreed that it eventually needs to take the form suggested above, but it is a large task that simply has not been accomplished yet. If you are extremely uncomfortable with the current article staying up as is, I doubt anybody would cry out too loudly against largely blanking it pending rewrite, just to keep NPOV. Or adding an NPOV dispute. Also, the article Mormonism and Christianity explores many of the bones with Mormonism over the years. User:Hawstom (sig added by Sam Spade 23:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Thats another thing, the article as it stands seems to rule out the discussion of reasonable criticism by defining anti-mormonism as dishonest:

("Honest criticisms of Mormonism are seldom referred to as "anti-mormon", and ideally, the term is reserved for dishonest or deceptive critics.")

Anyhow we all seem to agree where the article has some failings. I see no need to blank or delete it, its not offensive or shocking in its POV, and I'm sure it wasn't intended to have a pro-mormon slant. To sum up, this is no kind of an emergency, but rather an excuse for interested parties to do a bit of research and writing regarding the POV of the anti-mormons.

Is there any reason this article shouldn't be about Criticisms of Mormonism? Shouldn't that redirect here? If not, its hard to imagine we are ready for a second article. The wild and wacky things I know about mormons are all basically true...

(they don't drink wine, they used to have extra wives and lots of guns, they feel the USA is the promised land, Joseph Smith had family that were masons, they say Jesus came to america, the Indians were jews, and have "the book of mormon" that explains all this and more which they'll come to your door and give you for free! ;)

so does that mean their not appropriate for this article? Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 23:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think those criticisms are "Anti-Mormon." They are disagreements or criticisms, but not actively fighting against, trying to destroy or tear down, as Anti denotes. The purpose of Mormonism and Christianity deals with some of those issues, but criticisms will eventually end up its own article. We must be careful to present the correct POV when referring to the different groups - which this artile fails miserably at. -Visorstuff 23:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Good discussion. I am a little unsure about what is the best way to do this in an encyclopedia. I don't know of any good examples from other religions. Good parallels might be:

• Criticisms of Judaism and Anti-Semitism
• Criticisms of Catholicism and Anti-Catholicism
• Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses and Opponents of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Wow! Two direct hits! Not bad for shooting from the hip. And good examples they are, too. It looks like "Criticisms of..." articles may be a little rare. Tom Haws 05:31, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, is there a concensus that "anti-" necessarilly excludes reasonable objections, questions and concerns? To be frank, very few people are aware that mormons think jesus came to america or whatnot, they just get annoyed @ people knocking on their door and trying to convert them. Where does that sort of "anti-mormonism" fit in? ;) Sam Spade 12:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sam, being annoyed with people who intrude on the privacy of your home is not anti-mormon, it is being annoyed with people who disturb you at home regardless of the purpose of them coming to your home. It is the annoyance that a simple "no solicitation" sign handles. Anti-mormonism is manifested by individuals that are committed to "revealing the truth" and destroying Mormonism. Unfortunately, the truths they are revealing have little, if anything, to do with reality or true doctrines of Mormonism. Its sole purpose is to propose scurrilous accusations in the hopes of preventing others from joining the Church of Jesus Christ and persecuting those who are already members. I hope this helps. Storm Rider 16:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, so my question is pretty simple: is this an article where criticisms and concerns regarding reality or true doctrines of Mormonism can be discussed? If not, where is that page? For example, Anti-Masonry discusses legitamate concerns alongside more controversial "conspiracy theory" claims. Sam Spade 07:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms of Mormonism

Sam and Storm, this is very tentative, so give me a little slack on these thoughts. I don't think that the kinds of things Sam is talking about would be entirely inappropriate for this article in the context of "here's what anti-Mormons usually focus on about Mormonism". I'm not sure about that, but it may have a place (see Anti-Catholicism for examples). I'd like to hear the thoughts of Visorstuff and Alai on it. One thing I am pretty certain about. It will be hard to work on this article (at such time as it becomes the disinterested treatment it should become) if we are unable to override our visceral feelings one way or the other. The Mormons here can't be defending Mormonism, and the non-Mormons can be debunking Mormonism. Conversely, at this article, the non-Mormons can't be defending anti-Mormonism, with the Mormons debunking it. We all have to reach the point where, at this article, we are simply telling about "what the Mormons call" anti-Mormonism. Tom Haws 14:34, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Aha! That last sentance says alot. From what i read you see the goal for the article as being:

"telling about "what the Mormons call" anti-Mormonism."

myself I'm more interested in an article:

"telling the reader what signifigant objections to mormonism are, and how mormons respond."

thats something i'm curious about, and I assume many outsiders with questions or concerns (as well as mormons themselves) would find such an explanation handy. I get the impression that there will need to be a seperate article for that, and that this article is ment to be more geared to the sorts of things a group might discuss before perpetrating anti-mormon hate crimes, or maybe myths prevelant amongst non-mormons in 19th century Utah. Does that sound about right?

Sam Spade 14:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow! These are great explorations. It sure seems it would be good to collect what you are talking about somewhere. In the past we have floundered a bit in knowing how and where to do it. One problem, speaking pragmatically, is it seems every time we start a collection of Criticisms of Mormonism, the Mormon anons and new users jump in and turn it into a Usenet discussion, irresistable rebutting evey point inline. Part of me says this phenomemon reveals that we have approached the idea wrong. None of us at this project is interested in babysitting any article, and we tend to aim toward versions that are satisfyingly neutral to the point all reasonable people have to grudgingly admit all sides are represented fairly. Would Mormonism and Christianity be the right article to groom in the direction you are thinking? Tom Haws 15:26, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we could hack together a Criticisms of Mormonism out of this article and Mormonism and Christianity, with its focus on general objections and mormon responses. That would leave Mormonism and Christianity with obscure doctrinal issues unlikely to inspire layfolk, and this article with the hard core of unreasonable anti-mormonism. I certainly won't undertake such a task against concensus, but I would gladly assist in doing so if others deem it beneficial. Maybe it would be better to simply expand this article. As is usually the case w me on the wiki, I am here because I am interested in learning more, so whatever best informs the reader (in this case myself) should be where the concensus leads. Let me know what you guys think. Sam Spade 20:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should we go to WP:LDS and brainstorm it out? Tom Haws 21:19, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

OK, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Anti-Mormonism.

Cheers,

Sam Spade 00:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm still tyring to bring myself up to speed on the past few days (I've been away) - I still need to finish reviewing the above. Howeve,r in the short term, Sam, let's try this. Are you Anti-Semetic? Anti-Catholic? Anti-Masonic? Would you add your criticisms/disagreements of their doctrine/beliefs to their "Anti-" pages? I wouldn't, and don't think honest disagreements with Mormonism should fit here. Let me review later today and finish my thoughts -Visorstuff 15:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When you are ready, if you have thoughts on Sam's concerns that aren't about fixing this article, what say you go to WP:LDS so we can all figure it out there? Tom Haws 17:18, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I had thought that Mormonism and Christianity was the right place to put honest criticism of Mormonism. That's where most of my own work wound up back when I was on my, ahem, anti-Mormon kick. (Maybe that's why the article is so dull.) Visorstuff, you bring up a good point about Anti-semitism. I think my first big argument on wikipedia was about Christianity and Antisemitism (if that's the right link), and staking out the difference between opposing the religion of Judaism and the race of Jews. Wesley 04:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whoa there. This is pretty confusing. Keeping in mind the fact that I'm a member of the LDS church, which is only semi-important in this case, I've heard nothing of freemasonry or this "mystical underpants." Could someone clarify on this ordeal, just so I can laugh it off later? --R66-Y

Re-Write underway

I will be working on a complete re-write of this article over the next week or so. Once I have a reasonalble draft and outline, I will place it here: Talk:Anti-Mormonism/Rewrite. For now, I'm going to place the outline there - if you have suggestions or things that should be added - please add them in.

I will need particular help in discussing PAID Anti-Mormons. Although I'm very familiar with Sandra and Jerald Tanner and even have bumped into them at the Church historical library on occasion, I have a fairly one-sided view of many of the others, such as Ed Decker, etc. I'll need help fleshing that section out.

Also, should we include "dissidents" from within, and discuss such movements as the New Mormon history or September Six, etc.?

I won't dwell on ex-Mormons, however, some thoughts User:Vegasbright from you on that topic in particular would be appreciated. I will be using statistics from colleges about the current dropout rate and discuss reasons why as offered by scholars (I see your user page says up to 40 percent, but research from UNC (Stan Albright & staff) says as high as 10 percent in recent years) and will give similar historical figures on activity rates, dropout rates, etc. (just purchased a bunch of research on the topic (no, not from FARMS).

Also, a general comment - this page will contain many "criticisms" or arguments against Mormonism, that Sam Spade suggested should be in the article - I think this is wise, as long as we put it into the context of Anti-Mormonism and treat the arguments nuetrally without allowing for apologetic OR anti-Mormon responses to them (by not allowing, I do not mean censorship, but rather, we need to make sure it is in context of "this is what anti-Mormons believe - see the relevant Wikipedia article on that topic for discussion of both sides" type thinking. Hope this makes sense. -Visorstuff 17:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bless you, Visorstuff! It makes perfect sense, and you are headed in exactly the right direction. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Tom Haws 18:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Visorstuff, I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. The 40 percent figure I think you are referring to has to do with RM's going inactive, and this was a figure I was informed of by my mission president, my singles ward bishop and others. I do not know what you are referring to when you reference college dropout rates.

As for your insisting no contraryan comments be allowed countering apologetic arguments, are you kidding? Do you actually think that they should not be allowed here? Come on! I know how much the pro-mormon camp here would love for the opposing views to just go away, but outright saying the views should not be allowed? I find this unacceptable but frankly par for the course when it comes to the attitude I have observed here by the supporting LDS opinions. --Vegasbright 11:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have found no support for the 40 percent figure. Rather, I have found that the dropout rates for all people who join the church is around 10 percent. This is backed up by studies from Stan Albriect of the Univerisity of Florida (sorry said UNC earlier - was thinking of another study). This takes into account RMs, Converts, life-long members, etc. The number of "up to 40 percent" I believe is a myth, and have found not academic study to support it. I'd love to, however, as it is a figure persisting in LDS and Exmo culture, but its orgins are missing.

Second, this article is about contrarian opinions, not a forum for protelytizing views either for or against. It is about Anti-Mormons, not about trying to prove either side. Just as the Mormon page is about Mormon views, this page is about Anti-Mormon views. I don't think you read what I write.

When I say contrarian, I mean this is not a place to debate or share both sides of the argument. Rather in context, we need to address what they believe. We are saying the same thing, you just are not comprehending what i'm saying and trying to read too much into my intent. What I have written is what I feel. No more no less.

We need to make sure the arguments of each of the topics are on their associated article page - not in this article. If we allow this - the article would then become toooooooooo long and unmanageable - and a good candidate for VfD. -Visorstuff 18:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think what Visorstuff is saying here is this article should avoid both apologetics and criticisms of Mormonism. This article is about Anti-Mormonism, not Mormonism. Unless any of us have a specific interest in Anti-Mormonism, we probably don't have much to contribute. I most certainly don't, though you probably do a bit. I realize the term "Anti-Mormonism" itself is a bit problematic. Do you think this article needs to even exist along the lines of Anti-Semitism and Anti-Catholicism? Tom Haws 14:47, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think that there definitely is a need for a page outlining the existence of opposing mormon views but the term anti-mormon is overused too often. It is used more to invalidate facts that someone wants to supress or worse, outline bias where there is none. Its used as a blanket statement. --Vegasbright 15:30, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that. Any "Anti-Mormonism" article should make it clear that the term is sometimes nothing more than an epithet used by Mormons due to their discomfort. I think Visorstuff is doing that in his re-write. But we are still left without a plce for you to catalogue the concerns of ex-Mormons and the phenomenon of the ex-Mormon boards, etc. with their special terminology (I would love to see a treatise of it all including "TBM, Morg, Hinckster, KKK," etc). We are also seemingly left without a place for you to present the case against Mormonism, but I think I see the best way to do that is to launch a long career of watchdogging the tone of all the most prominent articles to make sure they are encyclopedic and not biased toward a particular POV, or in other words, that they include a fair representation of the exmormon POV. For example, once you have honed your Wikipedian sensitivities, you would want to be sure you were okay with Reformed Egyptian and Golden Plates (I am being brave here in pointing you to pet articles of mine because I truly believe you can become a valuable POV resource). Tom Haws 16:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think if you look at my definition of anti-Mormon and the new introduction on the re-write page, it will make sense - agree it is overused too often culturally but the definition is basically, publicly fighting against the church. Privately fighting is not considered "anti" but a critic or having a differing opinion.

We need to make sure the arguments of each of the topics are on their associated article page - not in this article. That going to be a major point - this is not the forum for debate, as the article pages are more appropriate for - for example, we could mention DNA issues here, however, it should be pointing people the article about DNA and the Book of Mormon (currently Archealogy and the Book of Mormon for a discussion of the details on the issue. -Visorstuff 18:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moved the rewrite to Anti-Mormonism/Rewrite, to enable the use of the Talk page for, well, talk! Hope no-one has objection. Thanks again for undertaking to work on this, VS. Alai 06:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Clear definitions needed

I See a differentiation that is needed between anti-mormons and the pro-truth camps. Although some anti-mormons use pro-truth arguments, I see myself as a member of the pro-truth camp. What I mean by this is that for example, It is not anti-mormon to say "joseph smith had a sexual relationship with Fanny Alger. That is pro-truth because it is backed up by Emma and other mormon leaders who called Joe on his impropriety. Now, this is not about Joes sexual escapades, its about the definition of anti-mormon and the perceptions implied by accusations of exmormons, conservative christians and others who oppose the LDS version of history. It is anti-mormon to say that because JS had a sexual relationship with Fanny, the LDS do not have a valid opinion. That is practicing false conclusions using bad logic.

What this comes down to is pure, unadulterated (no pun intended) definitions of "anti-mormon". Too often I see a blanket use of the term anti-mormon by pro LDS authors. Its used to shut down the idea that opposition to something cannot be acomplished by stating improprieties, and all attempts to do so then labeled as anti-mormon. Looks like I am jumping into this during the middle of an allready heated edit, so what I am proposing might already have been forwarded. --Vegasbright 10:17, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

"it would be proper to say that JS has no place as a respected religous leader for sleeping with Fanny and others"

Assuming he did, this would still be a highly POV statement. Sam Spade 11:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Aside from being tied to a comment by Emma disliking Fanny, and Oliver saying that he felt Smith had an inappropriate relationship (whatever inappropriate meant in the 1830s) the problem with this is that is coming to a conclusion that is nowhere confirmed. We should bring up such an argument, and state that this is the conclusions drawn by Anti-Mormons based on the four scraps of historical data available. You state "It is not anti-mormon to say "joseph smith had a sexual relationship with Fanny Alger." But rather to be NPOV this sentence should have read: "It is not anti-mormon to say "joseph smith may have had a sexual relationship with Fanny Alger." or ""It is not anti-mormon to say "joseph smith probably had a sexual relationship with Fanny Alger, based on...." I can agree, but unless you were a witness or can provide "solid" evidence, then the conclusion for or against is based on FAITH. Your faith is that he did. Mine is that we don't know. Others are that he didn't. We have to present it in context with the evidence, and then point them to an article that discusses Fanny Alger for the complete arguments.

Not a "camp" argument - lets stay away from camps - but instead state what the arguments are and why. There is too much we do not know - as we weren't there. It's a no brainer. -Visorstuff 18:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I Propose

A clear, "scientifically" (I am loosely using scientific here folks) based categorization of opposition to the LDS church utilizing links and short descriptions. This would be in lieu of "this is why so-and-so has no credibility". Let the facts speak for themselves. I believe Decker and other "saints alive" muck rakers have no credibility and are in reality just looking for a niche business. This observation needs to be stated and possibly segmented into another category altogether if one does not currently exist.

I see an underlying reason for so much debate on this page being the ambiguity of the term anti-mormon. This term is used not by opponents of the church but is a blanket term used by those who defend the LDS faith, as I used to when I was a faithful member. Instead of continuance of this rather misleading term, clarification geared toward the LDS visitors should differentiate between those who are outright rude towards the church and those who present facts that are uncomfortable to mormons.--Vegasbright 10:17, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think your conclusion presents an important distinction. Sam Spade 11:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am a convert, and have spent less than 24 hours in "Mormon Land", but in my mind, the difference between an LDS critic and an anti-mormon is that the anti-mormon uses deceptive techniques rather than factual statements. That's why I added the "Techniques" section that might have started this dispute^Wdiscussion. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 13:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree too. Clarifying the usage of the term like Vegasbright says is an important part of the solution. Tom Haws 14:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Please see my definition that was created on the re-write page. The definition has been defined. It may be broad, but it should be as it is a cultural term, not a scientific term. That said, I think even within the culture it is often over extended - thus my comments with the definition.

Yes it is partially the techniques - but taht is rather a symptom. It is in the public nature of their activiites. A preacher may be well-meaning for his congregation, but still gives an "anti-Mormon" sermon. A preacher who speaks individually with various members of his congregation or answers questions about the church in a sunday school or bible study class wouldn't be considered "anti-Mormon" but rather in disagreement with the church - big difference. Not all exMormons are anti - but those who publicly act iconoclastic toward the Church. -Visorstuff 18:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We need to make sure that we take in to account the historic anti-Mormonism. Before the westward movement in 1847, the anti-Mormonism was often violent resulting in many assaults and deaths. This was why the many movements of the headquarters of the church, eventually to what is now Utah.

Modern anti-Mormonism isn't physically violent. Rather, there are people and organizations that have a visceral dislike for mormon doctrine. This results in (1) legitimate doctrinal disagreements, (2) misunderstood or mixed doctrinal disgreements and (3) fabricated doctrinal differences. One is handled on the Mormonism and Christianity page. Two and three would be the "doctrinal differences" that would not be redirected to another page. That will inherently make the page seem POV, whether it is or not. If we include types in one, then there is redundancy which is also not good.

The best that I can suggest is that we make this page about the historical opposition, doctrinal difference types two and three? Doctrinal differences of type one should be mentioned and redirected to other appropriate pages for discussion. Val42 03:45, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid your proposal would make such a page be inherently POV, beyond merely seeming that way, unless we have 100% accurate access to what's incontrovertably "legitimate" and what's not. A more feasible split would I believe be between the doctrinal disagreements (legitimate and otherwise) themselves on the one hand, and the activities of opponents on the other. (Likewise, without attempting to make windows into souls to determine whose motivations are good, and whose not.) Alai 03:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's get it on

There has been a lot of discussion about the rewriting of this article. What about if we just do it? Here's another proposal:

• Introduction should be the current last-two paragraphs.
• Keep the historical anti-mormonism. I think that we can all agree on this part.
• Keep the first three paragraphs of "Doctrinal opposition". This is a summary with redirects.
• Keep from "Modern day opposition" onward. I think that this is what everyone is agreeing to above.
• Delete the rest until we can figure out how to handle it. This will immediately remove the doctrinal debate and increase the quality of this page.

What do you think? I'm proposing this as a vote. Is the usual vote one week to reach 2/3rd of those voting voting for the proposal? I'd like it to pass, but I won't be offended if it doesn't. But at least be good enough to make another proposal. I want to get something resolved. Val42 04:24, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. We need much more detail than what you suggest. If you want to do the above as an immediate step feel free. See re-write and definition I've started at Talk:Anti-Mormonism/Rewrite; be patient with the re-write, it takes time. I'd encourage input and comments, but please rather watch and coach with the article rather than editing and opposing my thoughts before they are fleshed out (stated and written all the way through). It will make sense in the end, but I'll be using the page as a sandbox in formulating thoughts and gathering details. It will make sense and I think show Vegasbrights and a much more nuetal and accurate view in the end. Coaching is suggested, and please leave your name for discussion. In any case, my definition of Anti-Mormonism is done and needs comment. -Visorstuff 05:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ditto VS. Please let's just give him some time and space to do his rewrite. I think this is already the consensus without any need for a vote, and when he is ready (let's thank him, not pressure him) with his rewrite, we can all feel free to edit and discuss it. Meanwhile, let's just try to ignore this page. If VS and I are wrong, please go ahead and get the project members to tell us, but I am pretty sure based on weeks of comments here that consensus is already behind VS. Tom Haws 18:59, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

A broader and more neutral article

I'm not too sure about Vegasbright's (so much for using "V." as an abbreviation...) recent edits, but I do agree on at least one point: the term "Anti-Mormon" is itself not without POV implications, especially if we're going to seek to use it definitionally in the article to say that the term only applies/is only used by LDSers to mean "dishonest" or "iconoclastic" critics as opposed to "honest" critics that use "legitimate" tactics, or to which the LDS Church or LDS apologists take exception. It then becomes totally POV to even discuss a particular person or group here as it requires establishing that not only are they critical of Mormonisms, but they fulfil various criteria (that we don't necessarily even have a definition of) for being "bad" critics. I urge more general criticism of my earlier suggestion to move to -- or perhaps better, bin this article and start from the ground up at -- a more neutral title, and accordinglt aim to end up with a more broadly defined article. Be that Opposition to the Latter Day Saint Movement or Critics of Mormonism, or whatever. Then turn Anti-Mormonism and Exmormonism into redirects, or if strictly necessary explanatory stubs. Alai 02:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I strongly support Alai's suggestion. I created an article called opposition to cults and new religious movements for the same reasons instead of lumping it inaccurately and unfairly together under anti-cult movement. Andries 15:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before, but my criteria for Anti-Mormon is when deceptive means are used. An honest disagreement, whether it be public or private, isn't Anti-Mormon (IMHO). wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 21:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

And that's the whole problem. If, in order to decide whether a given person or criticism ought to be here, we have to decide whether they're being "honest", then we have a massive POV problem. I'm still very strongly minded to move and rescope the article as above, though I was hoping for more in the way of support and suggestions. (And I'm very grateful for Andries', many thanks.) Alai 15:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

When people quote things out of context, use false citations, and twist the conventional meanings of the text, that is deceptive means. Look at some of the examples I cited earlier, and I have trouble believing it is POV. The statements are clearly misleading. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 02:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm still in the re-write phase, but an a bit upset that I was not consulted about a page move. The article as I've written does not fit here - and either we are going to have an off-topic article or 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. I disagree with Bill Pringle as my definitions on the early re-write page shows, but it will make much more sense when done. Honest or dishonest, it is whether the iconoclastic activity is done publicly or not. When a group of people call themselves "anti-cultists" or "anti-mormons" the term should be addressed. If not, let's do a re-direct page from Mormon pointing them all to Latter Day Saint or from Blacks to Negroid or from Man to Male, if we go by "proper" or "less offensive" terms. I will move this page back, or stop a re-direct when my re-write is done, unless there is some serious discussion that takes place in the next couple of days. I'm not willing to re-write this article yet again when I'm so close to being done to reflect this change. It's a waste of a month's worth of my regular editing time, and needless to say, very dissapointing for someone to come in and make the change who is not familiar with the history of a disputed page. Let's get this figured out before I waste more time. I guess some of this is my fault for taking a month to re-write the page and going on an spontaneous vacation last week, but we have to get this figured out, and I thought we had. Please let's hear the justifications and reasons why the term should be eraticated from Wikipedia. I believe it can be done in a NPOV way. -Visorstuff 21:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

You wrote that the page move had not been discussed but this is untrue. It had already been discussed at 23 April. I do not oppose two articles i.e. "Anti-mormonism" and "opposition to Mormonism" that will differ somewhat from each other. Andries 21:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes but usually there is a vote or consensus made first. On the date referred to, there was no clear consensus. -Visorstuff 21:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It is true that there was no wide consensus for the move. The move is not entirely unreasonable, but in the context of a rewrite underway, it was rather inconsiderate. Would it be possible to simply hit the undo button for now? Tom Haws 22:46, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

In the past, I have been impatient about the re-write too. I've learned to be patient, as long as it doesn't take until July. But I do not see that anything has been gained by changing the name of this article with essentially the same content. And given that the rewrite was well underway, there has been considerable loss. I think that it would be better to undo the move. Val42 06:08, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

---

Perhaps a seperate article could be done on anti-Mormonism as a political force in the third world.

Marxist militants in countries like Peru have targeted Mormons in protests and with physical force because they are seen as being too close to American imperialism, too wealthy, etc.

Just a thought, especially since their church is fast growing in the third world now.

Along similar but different lines, what about the history of racism in the LDS? Perhaps thats too different and authentic a criticism to be anti-Mormon (although I'd argue there is some validity to anti-Mormon actions in the third world too...), and goes to the 'criticism of' debate.

Excellent points - not too familiar with the Peruvian tie-ins, will have to rely on your expertise there. The history of racism in Mormonism is better confined to Blacks and Mormonism (incidentally, why is there not a page about Blacks and Baptists or Blacks and American Protestants or something similar? You only have to look back ten-fifteen years and you see other denominations in the same boat, but I digress). I think it is an interesting topic to be discussed, but not neccessarily an Anti-Mormon topic, but rather, a tool they employ. I'll have to think about incorporating into the article.

Visorstuff, I'm sorry feel you weren't consulted, but I proposed doing this, on this very talk page, a number of times, and aside from a couple of comments from wrp103 about his own definition of Anti-, there was no opposition at the time. I'd personally be opposed to a move back or to an "article fork", for those same reasons. Anything one can write in the context of "Anti-Mormonism" should be appropriate on this page, including a treatment of how LDS writers distinguish "Anti-Mormonism" from "other types" of opposition. But what seems to me to be unavoidably POV is to simply accept that definition, when doing so involves making judgements about the honesty, legitimacy, etc, of criticism and opposition, as defined by the people being criticised. Alai 16:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I freely admit I over-reacted to the page move. I am not confining it to "self-descriptions" but it is a serious term that has been studied academically, which is one reason it deserves this much treatment. I don't think we can judge the honesty of criticism, instead, we must judge the category as defined by others - my definition is a composite of others work. I think I'll be done in about a week until page goes live. -Visorstuff 19:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To re-iterate, I definitely think the page needs to "treat of" the term Anti-Mormon, and likewise should include discussion of people and groups that self-describe as Anti-Mormon, as well as those that the movement and historians would so describe. But I feel that if we move those definitional issues "down a level", to within the article, we're making progress, as it avoids having to come to a definitive view on whether such are indeed Anti-Mormon, in order to simply "scope" the article. At any rate I'd urge you to finish your rewrite as you originally intended it; I'm certain it's bound to be an substantial improvement on the current text, and if my thinking about the page move is wrong, or counter-consensus, it can be moved back in due course. I'd urge you not to "fork" the article, in either event though, as surely the broader term is inclusive of all likely A-M-specific content, and ending up with parallel versions will just complicate matters logistically. Thanks, Alai 19:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll take you up on your offer that "if my thinking about the page move is wrong, or counter-consensus, it can be moved back in due course." Tom Haws 14:45, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering if "due course" is now. Every time I see Opposition to Mormonism come up on my watch list, I cringe because it's just so awkward, and it sounds like it was coined by a committee. Anti-Mormonism is such a more widely-used word, and is essentially synonymous with opposition to Mormonism, except it's more analogous to Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Communism, and Anti-racism. Of course, we ought to make it clear to all editors, that what we mean here is opposition to the existence of Mormons or Mormonism, rather than just criticism. But that can be done in the first paragraph, rather than the title. COGDEN 22:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

How about waiting until VisorStuff's version is ready? Then we'll know what the article is about and what the name should be. Nereocystis 22:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Visorstuff, are you still working on the Anti-Mormonism/Rewrite article? I haven't seen any activity there in a while. Do you still plan on doing a complete rewrite? COGDEN 00:03, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I will post something up on the re-write page later today - I've been working on it - about seven MS Word pages - it will need help. However, I havne't posted because I'm still not complete - there are a lot of ideas thrown on the pages, and needs editing. Perhaps if I throw it up, we can collaborate on it and get it done faster. I'm sorry for such a long delay. -Visorstuff 16:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that everyone here agrees that the term "Anti-Mormon" is rarely if ever used to describe the same things as "Opposition to Mormonism". Some people use "Anti-Mormon" to describe the blatantly dishonest. Others use the term to describe those who act in public, or violently, however it seems that the term is practically never used to describe anyone who simply disagrees with Mormon teachings. Therefore, I think the title of the article matters greatly. If we title the article "Anti-Mormon", then we have all kinds of POV problems trying to include everything considered "Anti-Mormon" and exclude such things as private opposition, friendly disagreements, etc. If we title the article "Opposition to Mormonism", at least we have a clear scope and no POV problems. Perhaps we could create another article "Anti-Mormon" which describes the different way the word is used, and refers to "Opposition to Mormonism" for the meat on history, techniques, points of disagreement, etc. I agree that we should wait until VisorStuff's rewrite is ready, but I think we should then make the changes necessary to fit the title "Opposition to Mormonism" and put the results there. RBurns 03:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for an inclusive article title naturally welcome, if the current one fails to meet that criterion. I'm not so sure there's no potential overlap or confusion between the intended categories, though. Unless someone can propose a definition for Anti-Mormonism that's uncontroversial, readily applicable as a test, and isn't "original research", to boot. Easy, eh? I agree the title certainly does matter, hence the criticism (dare I say, opposition to...?) the original. Your suggested split does make a great deal of conceptual sense, provided it really is kept along such lines. Mind you, I suspect it's a little premature, and much the same reorganisation can (and should) be done within a single article, until such time as there's enough material here to make a "split" more strongly indicated. Alai 04:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually "Anti-Mormon" is used to describe much of the same activity as "Opposition to Mormonism", though I don't know how frequently:

Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism says that Signature Books is anti-Mormon, and this is from fairlds.org.

On Talk:Anti-Mormonism/Rewrite#Uses of Anti-Mormon, I located a few uses of the term Anti-Mormonism, in the hope that we can find references to its real usage. I would like to see more references to the term. On Anti-Semitism#Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, there is brief reference to the possible use of the word anti-Semitism to stifle debate on Zionism. Saying that Signature Books is anti-Mormon seems to be a similar case. Are the Tanners really anti-Mormon, in the sense of an unreasoning prejudice against Mormons, or are they opposed to Mormonism? I don't know for sure. Some of their research is quite reasonable, though the presentation can be a bit much. Nereocystis 19:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told, this topic is unstable and involves a lot of dicrimination. There is almost no way to make it completely neutral. Unfortunately, as Wikipedia must remain an infinite depository of planetary knowledge, an effort must be made to make it as neutral as humanly possible. --R66-Y

Why can't a so-called "Anti-Mormon" write this article?

First of all, it's not my wish to offend the person who wrote this article. I think it's an interesting idea, and could be very informative. However, the article is a _very_ poor description of so-called "Anti-Mormonism".

It's obviously written from a Believing-LDS POV, who is sort-of familiar with criticism of the LDS Church, but not familiar with much of the intricacies of what makes ex-LDS tick. I would liken the article's flaws to the inaccuracies that, say, a Fundamentalist Christian in the Bible Belt (who personally knows no Latter-day Saints) might have about a Latter-day Saint in Utah. There are elements of truth, but the perception as a whole is quite off-kilter. And, frankly, it's offensive to those of us who are critics -- just as off-kilter descriptions of LDS are offensive to LDS.

I was going to offer some suggestions for the re-write, but honestly, I wouldn't know where to start. It's like the whole POV is so distorted, that one would have to start from scratch. I know that a re-write is underway, but is it another re-write from a believing Latter-day Saint?

Well-meaning as it is for a believer to write the article, wouldn't it make more sense for the article to be written by a person who is critical of the LDS Church, and then offer the article to you folks to ensure that the language is neutral and that the facts are accurate? I've often heard Latter-day Saints say, "If you want to learn about Mormonism, ask a Mormon! Why would you ask a non-Mormon what a Mormon believes in?"

Shouldn't the same thing hold true for "Anti-Mormonism"? If you want to know what an "Anti-Mormon" believes, ask an "Anti-Mormon"! Why would you ask a Mormon what an "Anti-" believes in?

With that in mind, I would like to offer my services to write the basic article. I won't give out too much personal information in this post, but I am heavily involved in the current movement that is sometimes called by us the "Disaffected Mormon Underground". I also administrate a site that you already have linked as an "anti-Mormon" site; I run a website and a very popular bulletin board that is part of the "DAMU" (as we affectionately call it). Therefore, I am intimately involved in the movement you all are trying to describe.

The movement itself is interesting, I think. It's much bigger than most Latter-day Saints realize. At least, it's far bigger than I thought it was when I was a believing Latter-day Saint, and it's growth is fueled in large part by the internet. There are some interesting demographic shifts that have been happening over the past few years. Historically (within the past 30 years), some of the people who have doubted the supernatural claims of the church or who have become disaffected with the Church in some other way, have become "Sunstone Mormons", but in the past 5-10 years, we've seen a distinct shift away from that. Now, the "Sunstone Mormon" population is diminishing, and getting older. While Sunstone has retained it's "liberal LDS" members, the younger population who would have turned to Sunstone have ended up turning to internet bulletin boards, like "Recovery from Mormonism," "The View From the Foyer," "2think.org," "Postmormon.org," "New Order Mormons," "The Folk of the Fringe," etc., and their associated information websites, and have simply left the Church completely -- typically just going inactive, rather than formally removing their names from the records.

So, what do you think? Would you like the perspective of someone who is intimately acquainted with the movement of which you are speaking, or do you feel that you have things under control with your new re-write? If you don't need my input, no problem, I eagerly await your article. However, if you would like my help, I can harness the input of several like-minded individuals that are prominent in this movement, so as to create the most accurate article on "Anti-Mormonism" (a term we hate) possible. If you would like to email me with questions, email me at kk2468@hotmail.com. Or you can just reply here, and I'll read it. Thank you for taking the time to read my opinion. (kk2468 - July 12, 2005)

Wow! This is so cool that you turned up. I think it would be great if you visited User:Visorstuff and discussed with him in private the re-write of this article. I feel certain that together you two could come up with a quality article. Also, sorry about the current condition of this article. Perhaps the two of you could work on an article in a sub-page your User: account. Anyway, I am really pleased to have read your offer and analysis. Tom Haws 20:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I would love to discuss with you (User_talk:Visorstuff). Incidentally, there is a page about Exmormons, and what makes them tick, that was created by an exmormon. I've been working on a re-write, and frankly, it is about the historical term - what an Anti-mormon is (as opposed to an exmormon, a church critic, a non-mormon - terms defined at Anti-Mormonism/Rewrite. I've also included a list of some notable anti-mormons, what the common arguments are (without leaving a place for LDS rebuttal - which is a major and stupid issue in the current article)

you wrote:

I was going to offer some suggestions for the re-write, but honestly, I wouldn't know where to start. It's like the whole POV is so distorted, that one would have to start from scratch. I know that a re-write is underway, but is it another re-write from a believing Latter-day Saint?

I've come to the same conclusion, hence the problem with how long the re-write taking me to do. I have started from scratch. I am a Latter-day Saint, and I am writing this article from the point of view that Anti-Mormon is a Mormon term referring to those who publicly fight against the church - not those who disagree with the church - that would be something else. Please note my clarifications on categories of non-LDS people from an lds perspective on teh re-write page - this is the basis for my thinking. I am a published writer, and I don't want to deal with the LDS point of view to Anti-Mormon issues in the article - this shouldn't be an apologetic, or bashing forum, but rather descriptive about what an anti is. This page at teh time of the completion of the re-write will be a re-direct page pointing folks to the various "opposing groups": Anti-Mormon, Exmormonism, etc.

Based on your profile, it looks like you'd not only be valuable to the completion of this article (see my draft outline above), but also provide a much needed review of Exmormonism. I do think that the "Disaffected Mormon Underground" is not Anti-Mormon, but more in the exmormon classification - am I wrong in this? I have exmormon friends, but don't consider most of them anti-Mormon. Should they be included in this page? I've also thought about creating a page for "New Order Mormons" and Jack Mormon is already completed. They are needed. I'll shoot you an email to discuss. visorstuff@yahoo.com

One last thing - you shouldn't hate the term Anti-Mormon. You shouldn't feel you are one, based on your profile. Yes you discuss "recovery from Mormonism" and why you left the Church on your bulletin boards, but I don't see that activity as "Anti." You wrote "Shouldn't the same thing hold true for "Anti-Mormonism"? If you want to know what an "Anti-Mormon" believes, ask an "Anti-Mormon"! Why would you ask a Mormon what an "Anti-" believes in?" I consider you a chevy (exmormon) and and myself a volkswagen (mormon) talking about a ford (anti-Mormon)- using mormon missionary terminology. :^) Look forward to working with you. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 21:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL! That's a great analogy (Chevy/Volkswagen/Ford)! I've sent you a couple of emails. Apparently, you sent me one while I was writing one to you, then I sent an email replying to your first email! Eventually, we'll get in sync. :) (kk2468 - 12 July 2005

Yes - an analogy I cringed at in the missionfield. True enough, but.... I responded to both emails - let's move discussion to my talk page or the re-write page. Again, I'd encourage you to sign up and become a regular editor to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement. -Visorstuff 00:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

ANON's Recent Edits

ANON 70.111.82.204 insists on making edits to Sensatioinalized Exaggeration and Polygamy. Unfortuately, the ANON misunderstands the context of the paragraphs. His point, though good, is out of context. He wishes to ensure that readers will know that regardless of the context of the paragraph there are doctrinal differences. There is a paragraph later in the article for doctirnal differences, but there the paragraph is using broad brush strokes for major points. I didn't even feel the edits were acceptable there, but I am not opposed to the ANON entering his edits there if he things it is imperative.

I have also encouraged the ANON on his talk page to continue to edit, but read an article in its entirety before attempting to edit small portions. Storm Rider 06:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree with your reverts - this page does not state that this or that is "contrary to others" beleifs - because the whole page lists things that are contrary. Please see previous discussion. Mormons should not push their POV and neither should non-LDS. This is a listing of many of the differences, not why they are different in all cases.

Hopefully what I've stated above will bring context to this:

...please don't think that this page will not have criticisms or arguments against Mormonism, but rather it will place them in context of Anti-Mormonism and treat the arguments nuetrally without having to try to explain them away...

...It is not a place to discuss all of the arguments, not a place to be an apologist, but to discuss current Anti-Mormon trends, research, tactics, debunked critics, root issues. In short, this is their page, and it should neutrally reflect their stance on Mormonism, just as much as the Church's page should neutrally reflect Latter-day Saint's world view...

...this page will contain many "criticisms" or arguments against Mormonism ...as long as we put it into the context of Anti-Mormonism and treat the arguments nuetrally without allowing for apologetic OR anti-Mormon responses to them (by not allowing, I do not mean censorship, but rather, we need to make sure it is in context of "this is what anti-Mormons believe - see the relevant Wikipedia article on that topic for discussion of both sides" type thinking.

Hope this makes sense to the anon. By the way, I'm going to begin a peer review of my work soon. I've been stressing on how the re-write has been progressing and have a number of issues. I'm afraid it will be anti-climatic, but I've really fought the wording as carefully as I can. -Visorstuff 15:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Budvarson

Does anyone have biographical information or details about Arthur Budvarson? -Visorstuff 15:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I have only seen information http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/a-budvarson.html. Nereocystis 18:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hate Speech vs. Sacrilegious Actions

I left a note on Sam's user page. Hate speech is often used to describe actions that inspire/influence others to hate a people for their race, religion, etc. I believe that using hate speech in this context is attempting to use a much broader defnition. I would prefer the descriptor sacrilege for the manner in which anti-Mormon demonstrators display/use the temple garment.

It seems in today's society that "victims" desire to use very inflammatory labels to describe the people with whom they have a problem. Love Bombing to describe fellowshiping of religious groups, hate speech to describe offensive actions, are the two examples that come immediately to mind in the religious part of our society. Both terms are accurate for specific types of actions, but they are used too easily and in doing so will lose their value for true examples.

I will edit the language to scarilege and hope to hear from Sam for his thoughts. Storm Rider 17:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I like sacrilege better as well. Nereocystis 18:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Re-write up for edits/wikifying

Portions of the re-write draft are up on the Anti-Mormonism/Rewrite page for editing. I have not included biographies on Anti-Mormons as originally planned, but will link to their sub-pages and create a number of them.

Please be gentle - I've exposed my thoughts, and they may not make sense, but I'm hoping for some critiques. We'll need to add in some detail from this page. I've really sweated over most words and would like to discuss 'why' somethings are worded as they are.

I'll keep adding in content for some sections - I put in strawman in some areas, even though I have it more fleshed out on my desktop as the context was missing from my computer and would seem strange. Anyway - have at it. -Visorstuff 17:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Original scope of this article

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)

The rewrite that you are proposing is underway at "Anti-Mormonism/Rewrite". I think that you bring up points that are very relevant to those discussions. I considered copying your comments to that page, but I figured that if it is done, you should be the one to do it. Please use that page first for comments related to any rewrite proposals. Val42 06:31, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I remain skeptical that a split can be done on an NPOV basis; a reorganisation is fine in principle, but deserves a good deal of caution. What's your basis for asserting that such picketters are "similar to anti-Semitism and racism"? And it's hardly as if distinguishing what is anti-Semitism, or is racism, is in every case uncontroversial, so even if established, it's not clear your analogy helps as a basis of organisation of this material. The argument that it's "something most people aren't aware of" also makes me nervous; if it's not already a well-documented phenomenon, and the considerable majority of "takes" on it LDS-POV, it's going to be very hard to address in a verifiable manner without skating close to original research. I certainly don't want to defend the article status quo to any great extent, so by all means proceed with reworking it, just trying to point up some concerns. Alai 05:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think anti-Semitism and racism are bad analogies, because there is no race or ethnicity component in anti-Mormonism. Much better analogies are anti-Catholicism, or even better, anti-Communism, which are oppositions primarily based on the the ideology. If someone converts from Catholic to Protestant, or from Communist to Nazi, the opposition goes away, just like when someone converts from Mormon to Evangelical. I don't think there is inherently a POV problem here. It's true that Mormons sometimes use the term anti-Mormon to label those who disagree with them, but that particular use of the term won't be in the article. Anti-Mormonism is simply proactive opposition (not mere disagreement, criticism, hindrance, or dislike) to Mormonism as an institution. COGDEN 01:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism is a better analogy. However, I think that there should be some reference to using anti-Mormon to mean people who disagree with them. Since it is a common use, it should be mentioned. Anti-Catholicism's Wikipedia article says:

Anti-Catholicism is religious or political opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, particularly of a kind employing alleged mischaracterizations, stereotypes and negative prejudices.

That bring up the question of whether the Tanners would fall in this category. They aren't really using stereotypes and negative prejudices. I'm not sure that they are using mischaracterizations, unless mentioning old Mormon teaching is considered mischaracterization. Nereocystis 16:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

NON-CONSENSUS PAGE MOVE

I'm missing where there was a unified decision to move this page - yet once again? This has happened a number of times now - without consensus. How is this page different in scope with the current title from Mormonism and Christianity? Ugggh! How about some discussion and voting or at least consensus on these items first? -Visorstuff 19:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Visorstuff is right. I thought I had missed the discussion. The page should be moved backed, and the move should be discussed, if anyone still wants to do it. It's possible that I could be convinced. The name sounds plausible, but don't do it without a discussion before the move. Nereocystis 21:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, now that its been moveed, its not that easy to move back - and it is consistent with other criticisms pages. However, this should not have been done. What are the pros and cons of leaving here or moving back? -Visorstuff 00:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of any "criticism of..." page. I don't care if it's "criticism of Mormonism", "criticism of Nazism", "criticism of eating babies", or "criticism of white, fluffy bunnies". The subject matter of criticism pages is too nebulous, and they become a breeding ground for partisanship, rather than verifiable facts. In general, I think all criticism belongs in the article containing the subject matter to be criticized.

In this case, I think the term anti-Mormonism is well defined, and will be about anti-Mormonism, rather than simply being a catalogue of criticisms, rebuttals, counter-rebuttals, and counter-counter-rebuttals about Mormonism. So I think it this page should be moved to Anti-Mormonism, archived, and then replaced with the Anti-Mormonism/Rewrite. COGDEN 01:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

With the exception of Islam, most major religions have "Anti-". For example, Anti-Judaism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Protestantism, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Mormonism. The problem with the title "Opposition to Mormonism" is that it is tooo POV. Opposition to illegal drugs, opposition to racisim, ok. How POV can you get about the pros and cons of racism? LoL. The only diehard opponents to Mormonism are other Christians. The old title assumes that all people are opposed to the religion, or that few people question reasons for its opposition, which is just not true. --JuanMuslim 04:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Everything about this move stinks...

• The discussion. (Or lack thereof.) What everyone else just said.
• The seriousness with which Juan replies to people's objections. (Or lack thereof.) Those reponses are complete non sequiturs to the points raised, Juan, as as your assertions as to what "opposition" really means.
• The technically-correct page-moving. (Or... you get the general idea.) It seems to have done by a cut-and-paste move, which is expressly, absolutely, and unequivocally how not to do it. It completely screws up the page history, thus making the contributions quite non-transparent. Visorstuff, or any other admins looking in, can you fix this, please? (It might help if no-one edits the article in the meantime, then we can simply delete the new page, restore the old one, and re-move in the meantime.)

... except perhaps the target name, which I personally can see no strong objections to. Alai 06:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

JuanMuslim, had you read the discussion page before moving it, is going to be rolled out when a re-write is done - there are a number of us collaborating on the page. Had you read the history of the move to Opposition to Mormonism, you would have seen that page moves had been suspended (a moratorium on where the page should end up) because it was moved from Anti-Mormon to opposition to Mormonism without discussion. That page move, too, was done without consensus. I agree that "opposition" is not the right title, but please read the pages and why they are where they are before moving them. Thanks for the effort, JuanMuslim - just really bad timing on your part without reading the history of the page. It will all work out, just be careful. -Visorstuff 16:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Time to move forward - need consensus today

Alai - I don't think we can do a wholesale revert on the page move - unfortunately when a re-direct is put in place the is the history deleted? Rather than that, let's put the re-write live later today in its proper place (although it is unfinished) and then take from this article and put into either Mormonism and Christianity or Anti-Mormonism or the appropriate article. I can spear-head this if you'd like - and if there is consesus, but we will need everyone's help to get it looking pretty in the next 24 hours? Thoughts? -Visorstuff 16:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. COGDEN 17:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Simple solution, saving history

1. Go to Opposition to Mormonism, which will redirect to Criticism of Mormonism
2. Click on "Opposition to Mormonism" in "(Redirected from Opposition to Mormonism)"
3. Click on "Page history"
4. Click on "22:31, 12 September 2005", second history item down (I forget whether this is time zone dependent).
5. Click on "Edit this page"
6. Click on "Save page".

Everything is restored.

Perform similar steps for the talk page. Redirect Criticism of Mormonism to Opposition to Mormonism. This should be done because it restores the history.

Then we can discuss whether the move should be done, using standard move techniques. Later, we can copy the Rewrite page, and reorganize the text. Saving the history is the first step.

The only problem with this method is that it loses recent changes. We can survive with this. Nereocystis 17:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There is an Admin trick we can do to merge the page histories, but it's irreversible. I think we could merge the histories of all the relevant pages into a single Anti-Mormonism article. For the talk pages, it would be better to merge them by hand, or just move them to pages such as Talk:Anti-Mormonism/Opposition to Mormonism. COGDEN 17:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Official poll

On the proposal to put the Anti-Mormonism re-write page live at Anti-Mormonism today (although it is unfinished) and then take from this article and put into either Mormonism and Christianity or Anti-Mormonism or the appropriate article. Also, for merge the page histories and archiving discussion threads at Anti-Mormonism.

• Yes, do it today. -Visorstuff 18:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• No, there is legitimate criticism of Mormonism which is unrelated to Mormonism and Christianity, and is not Anti-Mormonism, e.g., Signature Books. Nereocystis 18:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, i believe we can take care of that issue later - we have a much bigger issue here. The statement about Signature books seems to isolated, not permeating across all Mormonism culture. But that's my 2 cents - let's tackle that later afte the page moving issue gets resolved.

I can see the need for a separate article regarding, e.g., Signature books. However, I think this ought to be a separate article named something entirely different. For example, Mormonism and scholarship, or something like that, which would cover the whole FARMS vs. Signature debate, and related issues such as the excommunication of Mormon dissidents, the closing of LDS Archives, and the merits of faith-promoting scholarship vs. warts-and-all scholarship. COGDEN 19:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes. COGDEN 19:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Yes. Move it. The sooner, the better. Anti-Mormonism is the best, nonPOV option. --JuanMuslim 05:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Another poll, restore previous state

Restore Criticism of Mormonism to Opposition to Mormonism. Use method described in #Simple solution, saving history. After this is done, discuss next steps. Don't make panic move due to current circumstances. Nereocystis 18:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, follow these steps. Nereocystis 18:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, if there is no consensus on the first poll. COGDEN 19:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• No, the title "Opposition to Mormonism" is too POV for Wikipedia standards.--JuanMuslim 15:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

After we restore the history, we can discuss the best title for the page. Nereocystis 18:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Comparison between Anti-Mormonism, Criticism, and comparison with Christianity

From what I can see, we have 3 different topics we are discussing:

Anti-Mormonism

Mostly hostility towards or prejudice against Mormons, though it does cover other topics.

Mormonism and Christianity

Comparison between Mormonism and other forms of Christianity, includes Christian thoughts and criticism towards Mormon doctrines.

Criticism of Mormonism

Analysis and judgment of Mormonism. Includes discussion of historicity of Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, for example. This category is not limited to comparisons with other forms of Christianity.

Some topics may be difficult to split up. The historicity of the Book of Mormon does not belong in either anti-Mormonism or Mormonism and Christianity. It belongs under criticism.

Claims of restoration to the original Christian church may be difficult to place in just one category.

Criticism should not be limited to negative criticism.

Nereocystis 19:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Historicity of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham belong on the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham pages, respectively. I agree that there are three categories, but as I stated above, I don't think one of them is Criticism of Mormonism. The analysis and judgment of any aspect of Mormonism belongs on the page about that aspect of Mormonism. But I do think we should have a separate page for Mormonism and scholarship, which would cover some of the aspects of what you are referring to. COGDEN 19:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with COGDEN. I definitely disagree with Nereocystis' third point - disagreements with Mormonism is very different than Criticism of it. The historicity of the BOM does not belong under a "criticism" or opposition article but under Book of Mormon or Archaeology and the Book of Mormon or Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. The small disagreements and criticisms are generally topic-based, rather than aimed at the movement as a whole. Many pastors have issues with various church doctrines, but generally believe mormons are good Christians. Others do not and preach at General Conference waving sacred vestments around. The above is not a movement, and should be confined to the specific topics in which they are addressed and can be expounded properly. This is where you and I have disagreed in the whole thing. I do not see criticisms or opposition as a movement, as I do Anti-Mormonism. Anti-Mormonism has a history, but opposition or Criticism does not have much of a documented history as a movement. Anti-Mormon should be it's own page and the other criticisms placed where the are appropriate. We still need more editors to weigh in on the above moving of a page issue. -Visorstuff 20:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Mormonism and scholarship is an interesting alternative to criticism. It might work. I understand Visorstuff's idea of commenting on the historicity of the Book of Mormon under Book of Mormon or Archaeology and the Book of Mormon or Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, but I also like the idea having a central article which combines multiple criticism/scholarship in one place.

Yes, we do need more editors to weigh in on the subject. I really want to remove the 24 hour limit on discussion, hence the preference for reverting first. Nereocystis 20:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The best option - MERGE

The best option is to merge the three articles that follow into a single article because each of the three articles are about the same subject. The main difference is the way the content is arranged and that one title may sound more biased than the next. One article should include all three aspects. The content for the articles "Criticism of Mormonism" and "Mormonism and Christianity" fall along the same lines. --JuanMuslim 04:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Mormonism: Mostly hostility towards or prejudice against Mormons, though it does cover other topics.

Mormonism and Christianity: Comparison between Mormonism and other forms of Christianity, includes Christian thoughts and criticism towards Mormon doctrines.

Criticism of Mormonism: Analysis and judgment of Mormonism. Includes discussion of historicity of Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, for example. This category is not limited to comparisons with other forms of Christianity.

I disagree with merging all three articles into one. Two are very distinctive. JuanMuslim, I appreciate your sentiments, however, we've been working on a solution to this issue for months. The resulting article would end up being more than a megabyte long and very un-navigatable. You are jumping in at the tail end of the implementation of decisions that have been put in place nearly six months ago of a direction to move. I rather agree with Cogden's suggestion - keep Mormonism and Christianity, Anti-Mormonism, and Mormonism and Scholarship. There is already a Mormonism and Judaism article and an ex-mormon articles, which are subsets of what you suggest, which would not be consistent with article naming conventions and other precedence set in the Wikiproject: Latter Day Saint movement (WP:LDS). I don't mean to be hard-nosed, but please look at the history of the article that has now been moved twice and the discussions that have taken place. Hopefully the context will help. Let's get consensus on moving anit-mormon live, and then suck info from here into the appropriate articles - whereever they are. -Visorstuff 14:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I also disagree with a mega-merger into some vast single article devoted to criticism. Mormonism and Christianity is not going away. It has too long a history of compromise, and it's a good, well-defined topic that can explore both sides of the issue, and can be based on verifiable facts (such as the official statements of various denominations, or Mormon scripture). Likewise, anti-Mormonism is a good, well-defined topic. The facts about Anti-Mormonism are verifiable and notable, and there has been a lot written about the phenomenon of anti-Mormonism, both good and bad. But any "Criticism of..." article, especially one about a controversial topic, is a disaster waiting to happen. The scope of a criticism topic is so broad and ill-defined as to be meaningless. There are no criteria from which to decide whether something belongs in a "criticism of..." the article or not, and if taken to its logical conclusion, this mega-article would simply be a messy catalogue of every notable critical statement that has ever been said regarding any topic of Mormonism. And, of course, there would have to be rebuttals, which would duplicate everything that has been said in any Mormonism-related topic. We might as well just merge every Mormonism-related article into one. COGDEN 17:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The scholarship article is an interesting idea, and may be worth doing.

Unfortunately, anti-Mormonism is not' yet well-defined. There aren't any references to the use of the term in the main article. There isn't an easy way to determine whether something is anti-Mormon, or just disagrees with Mormonism. Merging everything is likely to be too big an article. Many parts of the current rewrite sound like they came from a talk, but there isn't a reference. Why is professional anti-Mormon a separate category? It looks like an article written by a Mormon attacking people who disagree with Mormonism. Visorstuff has improved the article quite a bit, but it still needs some work. Nereocystis 18:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think anti-Mormonism is well-enough defined. It's certainly better-defined than family values, which has its own article. Apart from certain specialized definitions by some Mormons, it's the active opposition to Mormonism as an institution. And it's easy to determine what is anti-Mormon and what isn't: the test is, does it oppose Mormonism as an institution, or does it merely disagree with Mormonism on points of doctrine. If the latter, the article would generally go in the article covering the point of doctrine over which there is disagreement. I agree, though, that the anti-Mormonism/Rewrite article still needs work, but we ought to bring it up as a live article so that people can be aware of it and start editing. COGDEN 19:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The idea of three separate articles is fundamentally flawed. For example, Mormons don't have to address every non-Mormon critic out there. Every topic on wikipedia has the potential for additional pages such as the ones you've suggested. What is true is of most importance. --JuanMuslim 18:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's leave the "Mormonism and Christianity" article out of this; it's relatively stable, is fairly well-defined, and doesn't overlap nearly as much as the other two. I essentially agree with Nereocystis on the current "anti-Mormonism" rewrite; while I wouldn't quite go so far as to say "attack", it's very much unmediated and uncontextualised Mormon POV on what constitutes "anti-Mormonism", and I fear is almost bound to be such at that title, if it's going to take the concept as a given and then proceed straight into discussing the 'activities' of those who perpetrate such. It's certainly not the "history of the terminology" split between the two topics that was suggested elsewhere. Alai (forgot to sign earlier)

A recent edit just reminded me that we have yet another page to consider merging: Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is just an unencyclopedic list of all the things about the denomination that somebody in the past 180 years has criticized. That page is exactly what I fear this page will turn into if we leave it with the present title. This is like having an article called Criticism of everything throughout history that somebody doesn't like.COGDEN 17:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point, that article is indeed rather... Unfocused. Though the near-orphan Common Latter-day Saint perceptions is worse. Those should indeed all be refactored and restructured, though a straightforward merge isn't necessarily going to work. However, I do think this should be moved back to "Opposition to...", and with a view to either a) merging in the Anti- article, or b) being a great deal clearer about how the two overlap/split up than is presently the case. Alai 03:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think moving it back to Opposition to Mormonism is a step in the wrong direction. This article contains information that is criticism but not opposition, and shouldn't be merged into anti-Mormonism. I think this article should probably be renamed as something like Mormonism and scholarship. I also considered Mormon criticism and apologetics or Latter Day Saint criticism and apologetics (with criticism in the sense of scholarly criticism, similar to literary criticism), but I think that's too confusing to many readers who don't understand the scholarly meaning of criticism. COGDEN 20:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with someone writing such articles as you mention, and hiving off the elements of this article as would fit there, but I can't see that this article is at present anything much like that at all. It's very much about "anti-" and "Opposition to", re-POV'd, with some global search and replace of "opposition to" to "criticism of", and some moderate subsequent editing. I don't think that rises to an argument that this article is about "criticism" in any useful sense. Alai 05:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do with most of the material now on this page is, indeed, to merge it with anti-Mormonism, if it's NPOV, not original research, and verifiable, and otherwise to delete it. Then we can move this page in the above direction. COGDEN 05:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, merge it. Though not under that title. Perhaps we should have a "no status quo" page name straw poll? There's been about three page moves done "on the fly", and only the one to "Opposition to" had any real degree of consensus, and that was rather ad hoc and after the fact. Alai 06:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cut and paste correction

I still think this "cut and paste" job should be deleted (and this discussion moved to the "parent" page). If it can't be done as a "speedy" in the process of fixing the badly-done move, I'll list it on afd. We can then discuss a concensus and correctly-performed page move, if anyone's still keen. Alai 05:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Alai, about the cut and paste. I'll attempt to correct the cut and paste job, so that we have a rational page history, while preserving the status quo. COGDEN 18:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the "cut and paste" move. Everything should now be as it was earlier today, except the page history of Opposition to Mormonism and its talk page are merged here. It's as if the move had been done correctly. COGDEN 18:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent job. Now, let's undo the move. :) Any objections? I'm not sure we should bother with the formality of WP:RM given that the original move wasn't discussed anyway... Alai 03:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Sensationalised Exaggeration???

Regarding this part of the article -

Here is one such claim:

"Mormonism teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had sexual intercourse with God." This is a sensationalized extrapolation of statements such as: (1) Mormons believe that Jesus is the literal Son of God; (2) God the Father has a physical body; and (3) Brigham Young stated that Jesus was conceived in the same way as other people.

- Is there really any other way to interpret the above 3 statements? This seems less sensationalism to me and more like a logical conclusion drawn from premises accepted by mormons.

It is sensational to say "God had sex with Mary." The very statement draws attention to itself, but the statement is not doctrinal or even sound from a Mormon perspective. Sex is very different than an egg and a sperm creating a zygote and its attachement to a uterus, which can be done a number of ways historically and modernly. Conception happens at the point where a zygote is created, not at copulation. Hense the statement is sensational and draws conclusions where there ought not to be one drawn. Young taught that Jesus was concieved (A zygote was created and attached to a uterine wall) and it grew just like you and me. He said nothing about copulation. -Visorstuff 18:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I can see your point - but there is a difference between saying Jesus was conceived, like other people (I.E - we were all conceived) and Jesus was conceived like other people (I.E - Via sex). Given that most Christian denominations already believe in a sexless conception it would hardly require mentioning by Young unless he was referring to something else. (unsigned by anon)

So are you saying that other Christians don't discuss the conception of Christ? This was not a random statement or answer to a question, but a part of a talk with context around it. That is like saying that when if Pat Robertsoniski talks about the conception of Christ and Virgin birth on CBN then he is referring to "something else." Your reasoning makes no sense. You are basically saying that Brigham Young cannot discuss the virgin birth unless he is trying to share that the idea is wrong or that Mormons believe it differently. Since when do we limit what Mormons can talk about?

The quote in question is was part of a talk about the character of God. The portion quoted was used to illustrate that Christ went through the same processes as most men. He was mortal and subject to the same pains and so forth as mankind (see Isaiah). In the talk the birth of Christ was cited in the context that "he partook of flesh and blood...We are commanded to be pure as Christ is pure, and holy as he is holy...He has been exalted, crowned, and has received thrones, principalities, and powers; and he commands us to walk in his footsteps." (Journal of Discourses; 8:114; Brigham Young on the Character of God and Christ - Povidences of God and Self-Government, &c.)

Again, this is not a random statement of: Gee, Christ was conceived as a result of sex. Other portions of the same talk are much more clear and direct about sexual relations by Church members and gentiles, so it would seem logical that Young, had he meant to say "God had sex with Mary," or "God and Mary lay together resulting in Christ" he would have used similar language as the rest of his speech. He didn't, and therefore is suspect that it is placed in that context.

Your comment makes no sense that ye had to be referring to something else. Yes, Mormons do believe many of the same things as other Christians. Young talked about most of them, from the miracles and atonement of Christ to his birth and teachings. The logic is upsetting and seems either ignorant or naive about LDS church teachings.

Following your same logic, Young should not have discussed any of these either "unless he was referring to something else" as "most Christian denominations already believe" these things and "it would hardly require mentioning." -Visorstuff 18:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Old literary Criticism?

Would it be appropriate to include mention of Mark Twain's (critical) chapters on Mormonism from Roughing It? It was a very popular book, and reflected a tendency of writers and reporters at the time to go to SLC to deal with the "Mormon Question" (as they called it). Anyways is this relevant, or too obscure for the modern-day reader? Windsagio 23:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me, unless said material would 'fit' better in the article on the book. Or some combination of the two, indeed. Alai 05:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Restructuring edit

Hope no-one minds. Made one or two changes. Mainly a bit of restructuring to make explicit the difference between Anti-Mormonism and Criticism of Mormonism which needing doing. Seems a hard article to write and make NPOV. Good luck! Marcus22 10:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me?

I'm doing a report on world religions (right now I'm focusing specifically on christianity) and (like I do with any other report) I've been reading through the wiki. I find it interesting that the anti-mormon and criticism of mormonism pages are as along as all the other anti-christian pages combined; especially when considering that the mormon church was started in the mid-1800s and catholicism has been around for a couple centuries. I, personally thought I'd find more criticism of catholicism. Anyways, I thought that it was interesting. Anomalycp 4:24, December 7, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

As alluded to on Wikipedia:Content forking, "Criticism of X" titles are inherently non-neutral, because they present the debate one-sidedly and imply that the only discussion of a subject is negative. See Talk:Criticism of Christianity#Rendering_this_article_neutral for the many examples of where "Criticism of X" articles have become perennial and unresolvable neutrality disputes, and a discussion of how to address this. Uncle G 03:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but as criticism goes, this is still terrible. It reads like "Why all critics of Mormonism are wrong and evil". I thought that articles are supposed to be sympathetic. Alienus 23:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If only you applied "I thought that articles are supposed to be sympathetic" to your edits of other Latter Day Saint movement articles. But much of this does come from when the article was called "Anti-Mormonism". I still think that it should be renamed that. Val42 01:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

When the articles split, it caused a riff that hasn't been fixed yet in the directions of the articles. Both this and Anti-Mormonism still need work. -Visorstuff 14:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)