Talk:Mormonism and violence

Untitled

For some previous related conversations, see: Talk:Violence against Mormons

Adding sources about Destruction of Nauvoo Expositor and important Utah Massacres

I have tried to add sources around several important instance of Mormon violence.

I cited BYU Studies Quarterly, the Utah State Department of Cultural & Community Engagement, No Man Knows My History, the Sangamo Journal published in 1842, and History of the Church: Volume VI. But these have all been removed with claims of original research without citing any specific issues or unsupported statements.

How would others propose including these sources in this article? --Skull 36 (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Your reliance on primary sources is a concern. For example, you do indeed extensively cite from the Sangamo Journal (1842) but the article in question is not a neutral, objective journalistic account. Instead, it's a narrative written by John C. Bennett himself, which is disputed by other sources, including eyewitness testimony from a non-Mormon alderman who was present during the meeting.[1] It's not the role of editors to interpret primary sources or make judgments about historical, doctrinal, legal, notoriety, or trustworthiness issues; that's the purview of historians, attorneys, scholars, and journalists. Your edits also suffer from glaring issues with neutrality and encyclopedic tone: for instance, the statement that the second anointing ritual "is still practiced by the church" . Which church? There are multiple churches within Mormonism with thousands of members.

To improve the article, I suggest merging the "violence against Mormons" and "violence by Mormons" sections. This consolidation could provide a more comprehensive overview of the topic, as most of the time the two aspects went hand in hand: e.g. the expulsion from Jackson County directly led to the formation of Zion's Camp. This could open room for insight into how attitudes towards violence within Mormonism have evolved over time. Gottagitgud (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The removal of properly sourced material is concerning to me. For example, I added context around Joseph’s arrest which you removed. This is critical context that ought to be included.

In my opinion, the current article is not neutral, and seeks to downplay the role that Latter-day Saint members and leaders have played in acts of violence.

For instance, the summary says that Mormons have “faced significant persecution” and have also been “involved” in acts of violence. A more neutral review reveals that Mormons killed 400+ people, and suffered around 100 deaths during the early movement.

And so focusing first on persecution, and then using “involved” rather than a word like “committed” seems to acquit early Mormons of any wrong doing, and does not reflect a neutral tone.

In regard to the Sanguine, WP:SOURCE allows for newspaper publications when property attributed. WP:PRIMARYCARE says that controversial statements about historical figures can be included from primary sources when clearly and property attributed.

I’m willing to concede the inclusion of this report, however, since it is not a critical piece of the history.

I feel that it’s important to include the Circleville Massacre and Battle Creek Massacre in the body of the article.

I do not want to merge the two sections, since I feel that would downplay the role that early Mormons played in these acts.

I propose renaming the section “Instances of Theological Violence” to “Instances of Violence by Early Mormons” or “Acts of Violence Committed by Early Mormons”.

I am open to other titles. I feel it’s important to have a section about acts of violence committed by early members.

We could include several sub-headings divided by time period, location, or who was president of the church at the time.

—Skull 36 (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Opening sentence

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

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

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

Recent edits to Violence related to LGBT people section

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

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

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

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

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

... for this exact same source?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The section was added here.[2].--Amadscientist (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Use of primary sources for facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article does not seperate LDS and FLDS

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

What is the scope of this article anyway?

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

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

Here is the original version.[3] I dispute that the article has changed drasticly. The biggest change is the LGBT related section and as I recall when it was added and the LGBT Studies Project added to this talk page, that was a bigger argument of consensus as editors attemtpted to remove the LGBT Studies Project from the article even though it is up to the project to make that determination. As I recall that was a scope discussion as well. So here is the recap: in 2009 the article had out of context information about Prop 8 in an unrelated section. Since that was about all there was the information was transfered to other pages and the article's scope remained about Violence and how the LDS church has used it in the past. Is this article, as it stands on that level worth keeping?--Amadscientist (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Oaks comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hardy

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

POV issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If anyone forces themselves on you it is assault. Packer's comments were not about an attack but an advance. As far as you opinion of a gay agenda or what you think about it a could not care less.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

How about you tone down your aggressive attitude; after all the same could be said about your agenda here. If you don't think so, just ask; I would be happen to enlighten ignorance and stupidty. An advance is an assault; do you read or do you just talk and blather your opinion? --^StormRider 12:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we could all benefit from a little toning down right now. I don't think insults are going to bring us any closer to consensus. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

An advance is not an assualt by any definition used, regardless of what ever "Agenda" we may percieve of each other, but this is an encyclopedia and we edit it as such. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

God Loveth His Children

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

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

I'm not sure about the concern about a primary source because it is merely the church stating their position regarding this area, which is acceptable per the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. I believe the quote above was included to give greater context in the "Violence related to LGBT people" section regarding the official church doctrine regarding homosexuality. I actually do not believe this entire section even belongs in this article because the cited sermon/pamphlet deals with self-defense (women have also been counseled to strongly resist sexual advances like this by men), there are no cited incidents of gay bashing condoned by the LDS Church, and the position of the church is strongly against "physical or verbal attacks" on gays (per Oaks). 72Dino (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK....then you agree that a similar statement from LBGT groups on their opinion of the LDS church is appropriate? Goose...meet gander.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say something along those lines, but it looks like 72Dino beat me to it. I agree that the quote is only tangentially related to violence, however I also believe that the entire section is only tangentially related to violence (i.e. defending oneself against unwanted sexual advances does not constitute "gay bashing"). In summary, I agree the quote should go away, but I think it should take the rest of the section with it. At the very least, we should crop it down to size as I suggested above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this isn't about editor opinion on what the pamplets condone, it is what the sources say. The above mentioned quote only has to do with homosexualaity not violence. It is puffery and is preachy. It attempts to state an opinion of homosexuality and not violence against or for. It should go. and no argument has been made to counter the secondary, published sources to remove the section.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Violence against advances is gay bashing and the same applies to a woman. Women are taught self defense against attack...not advances. That was just stupid.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

And then we have LGBT violence as defined by graffiti and vandalsim. Uhm...right. Sure.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made an edit which I believe crops the section down to size, removing what seems to be WP:COATRACK material from both "sides".

Wait... you're saying a woman should not defend herself against unwanted sexual advances? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

White powder

I have reverted and edit by Amadscientist that removed all references to the white powder mailings of 2008. The edit summary stated that there was a BLP issue with the paragraph. I don't see why WP:BLP is an issue, because there is nothing biographical about the paragraph, and no "living persons" are even mentioned.

For reference, the paragraph reading:

In November 2008, the United States Postal Service delivered envelopes containing white powder to two LDS temples (one in LA and one in Salt Lake City), prompting a hazardous materials response and a federal domestic terrorism investigation. The LDS Church blamed opponents of the marriage ban for sending the hoax mailings, while a group that also supported the measure condemned "acts of domestic terrorism against our supporters." LGBT rights groups, such as Equality Utah and Equality California, have spoken out against the use of violence in protests, and note that the source of the "white powder" mailings has not been determined.

was reduced to:

LGBT rights groups, such as Equality Utah and Equality California, have spoken out against the use of violence in protests.

~Adjwilley (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

References

BLP is the main issue as this is an accusation with no basis. The LDS church is not a person, but an actual bishop or apostle made the accusation someone did something and another person accused another. Police confirm no evidence. It is a BLP issue. But, it is also a POV as this is JUST the pint of view of this person or the "church". This is not the National inquirer and Wikipedia is not a Newspaper. Removing per policy. But thank you for discussing this.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph essentially says "Organization A said that Organization B was behind attacks on Organization A. Organization C, which sympathizes with B, said there was no proof." The logic "These organizations are not persons, but are made up of people, therefore BLP applies" doesn't make sense to me. Could you please name the living persons you say are being accused, and explain specifically how the paragraph violates BLP? It's certainly not a lack of sources, since The Sacramento Bee, the Deseret News, USA Today, MSNBC, KCPW-FM, and the Associated Press are all being cited. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, It is pure point of view. The church believes it is an LBGT person, they think and then they accuse. How is this violence and incontext to LGBT or the Mormon church. There is none. It is pure speculation with no basis but guess work on the part of the person within the church that made the statement. Just becuase you make no mention of the person you are citing the sources and repeating the accusation in Wikipedia's voice of authority. It is a BLP issue when one group is accusing another of what even investigators have concluded to have no relation to any LGBT group or person. Under BLP policy even groups fall under this.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What you are saying directly contradicts WP:BLPGROUP. Besides, as I pointed out earlier, the sources used are reliable. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not the issue and no, nothing I have said contradicts WP:Group.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I said you contradicted WP:BLPGROUP, not WP:GROUP. You seem to be taking a group composed of an unknown number of unnamed people, and trying to say WP:BLP applies. That goes against WP:BLPGROUP, and even if it didn't, the paragraph would still be fine, because it's sourced to six different sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed here that you used WP:BLPGROUP to support your position that the white powder mailings should not be included in the article. As far as I can tell from the discussion above, you have not shown why this group of unnamed activists should be treated as a living person so that BLP applies. Also, BLP states, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." We have at least six reputable newspapers documenting the white powder incident, and whether or not the allegations are true, BLP says we should "document what these sources say". ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Found this discussion via the AfD, and thought I would comment on the BLPGROUP/BLPGOSSIP issue specifically. It is extremely rare for BLP-related policies to be interpreted to protect groups unless they're made up of only a couple individuals. As a result, I don't see how it could apply here, in a case where the allegation is kinda pointed at one or a few out of tens of millions of people. The text of BLPGROUP seems clear enough on this point, too. While I would personally prefer that WP had stronger protections in this area, as a matter of policy and precedent, I don't believe we do.) WT:BLP might be a place to gather additional views on this point. Have a great week, folks! --joe decker^{talk to me} 06:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Pamphlet subsection

The subsection on Packer's pamphlet, was created and recently expanded by User:Amadscientist. A number of editors have recently voiced concerns with the section, including:

• Trödel, who said the section has "WP:Undue weight issues," and "is an anecdotal story that can't be traced to any specific acts of violence that resulted from it."

Is not consensus for your actions. No specifics were given by the editor. Undue weight was in reference to the size of the article and per "balance" policy it is in regards to scholarly opinion not article size. The section has been referenced and sourced for all claims per policy. Weight is not an issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• User:72Dino, who said "I actually do not believe this entire section even belongs in this article because the cited sermon/pamphlet deals with self-defense (women have also been counseled to strongly resist sexual advances like this by men), there are no cited incidents of gay bashing condoned by the LDS Church",

The section does NOT deal with self defense and there is no consensus on this interpretation as taking percedence over the mainstream academic sources.

• User:Storm Rider who called the whole article an "axe piece",

His opinion in this regard has no bearing on any consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• User:Adjwilley (myself) who suspects the article is being used as a COATRACK for LGBT issues,

Then nominate it for deletion. No bearing on the consensus of the pamplet information.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• and User:Amadscientist, who has repeatedly removed the LDS position against "gay bashing." ([4], [5], [6], [7]) from the section, even though it is supposedly about gay-bashing.

Yesterday I removed the subsection, condensing the material down to a single paragraph. Today I was reverted by Amadscientist, with an edit summary stating: "Trimming was not needed. Last edits removed information with Rs to policy".

Apostle Oaks comments have context where they are now. I have suspended further work in that area as I had an actual secondary reference to include Oaks comments but will wait to include it. If they were removed by accident I can put them back in the section above pamplet section. The Oaks comment there have direct context to the subject...but not in the Packer pamplet section, just the gay bashing context in the section above.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What I actually removed was a couple of lengthy quotes from Packer and Quinn, the opinions of 6 Mormon parents, and the "God Loveth His Children" quotation that Amadscientist was disputing and wanted removed.

I have reverted the edit, I would ask that Amadscientist defend their edit here on the talk page before reverting again. Thanks, ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You have not proven a consensus exists and are now edit warring to keep your version. This is not an acceptable practice. I have discussed this throughly on this page and the portion is referenced and cited and within Wikipedia policy for balance. I am reverting your edit as unjustified by consensus and edit warring.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I cite four users who have recently expressed concern over the section and you accuse me of going against consensus? I revert twice in the past two days ([8], [9]) and you accuse me of edit warring? You've made two reverts today alone ([10], [11]) and you reverted four times yesterday ([12], [13], [14], [15]) and again the day before ([16]). So who's edit warring against consensus? Rant over.

I'm going to take a break from here for a day or two, since things seem to be heating up. I'm not going to report you for edit warring, though I'd advise you to reconsider where the consensus really lies. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I really wasn't ranting. I have given the exact reasons to each point you used to remove or edit down the LGBT and Pamphlet sections etc. I believe I have not broken the brightlinerule of WP:3RR as I have stated the reason for the removal of contentious, biased content that I have shown qualifies as a BLP issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The "rant" was mine above ("...So who's edit warring..."). Also, regarding this, I sincerely hope you didn't take any of my comments as being anti-gay, because they certainly weren't intended that way. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, not you. I think it's hard for some people to believe that a gay editor may actually be trying to be neutral, but the article itself is not what consensus calls a coatrack as it has been nominated for deletion and the consensus was keep. Now, we can certainly renominate it, but I feel we are working together in some form. Whether you agree with me or not is one thing, but we still have to keep discussing to understand a few things. I'll be honest with you. I have no major expansion plans on the article at the moment and no further expansion plans for the section. Where we are right now is very much what I feel is a good starting point. Yes, of course the section I want is still there, but that is because you have not shown how it violates policy or guideline or true consensus. I expanded the quote from Packer because it was out of context and seemed unencyclopedic not to have the full quote for context to what he was speaking about. The opinion of the pamphlet is mainstream enough for it's weight. Quinn is considered an expert in his field. His qualifications have been established and can be added to the prose next to his name as a primary source reference if needed. The pamphlets have other groups beyond Quinn's attention and criticism. The God Loveth his children is strictly the point of view of the church and using it is akin to using Wikipedia as the voice of authority when there is no secondary source to support the claim. For this particular portion, I feel it is inappropriate to use the Ensign as a secondary reliable source when it is speaking directly about the editorial oversite of the magazine itself (it certainly isn't going to present a gay counter argument to one of the Apostles now is it?)

As for the article itself, I am prepared to present secondary reliable sources that can be used as an over arching source for the article on Mormon Violence and should be able to easily find references for violence against Mormons as well, haven't found an entire reference but most refer in some way to violence against Mormons. Believe it or not...Quinn qualifies as mainstream academic source as he has been cited more than enough in publications, journals and news stories.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying some of that. I'm still (obviously) not happy with the pamphlet section, and I'm not convinced by the BLP argument above. That aside, I am willing to work together with you, and appreciate the good faith you've shown.

Before we get too far, though, I think we should decide if deletion is an option or not: is it on or off the table? You've mentioned it as an option a couple of times, and off the top of my head I can think of a couple arguments for deletion. I'm fairly neutral on it myself, but I'd be willing to support that if you think it's a viable solution. I think though that if we're seriously considering it, we should try that first, since I'd hate to waste a lot of time trying to improve an article that's just going to get deleted sometime in the future. I've never proposed an Afd before, and it sounds like it could be fun. What are your thoughts on this? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it can safely be said that there is consensus to renominate this article for deletion, however...(isn't there always a but...) AFDs tend to gain peer reviews by multiple editors on particular issues (of either side of any dispute) and sometime when an AFD results in No consensus or "keep" editors then try to use the peer reviews on the AFD as consensus. We should be clear that an AFD has only one consensus and that is whether to keep or delete and then there is always the possibility that it could gain no consensus and still remain. I support the nomination, but don't know how much a solution it would be. But let's do it and see where it goes.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that if it results in "keep" or "no consensus", then it's no fair trying to pull editors' comments from the AFD to show consensus for some revision here?

I'll write up an AFD then, and try to make a logical case for deletion. Do you want to add some words to it before I start it, or do you just want to be one of the first to comment? This should probably be advertised with a note at the Project:Latter Day Saint movement, and I'll probably leave a personal note for User:COGDEN who created the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no, it is fair to pull comments from the AFD as peer review towards discussion on this talkpage if the article stays. Absolutely, just not as a consensus towards a dispute or policy etc, unless noted by closing admin. Good ideal to notify the articles original author and I'll leave a note at the section at the LGBT project.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok... I've created an AFD page, and linked it to the article, though I'm sure I've missed some steps. (I found the instructions after I created the page.) Do you want to have a look at it and perhaps add your thoughts on the matter? Hopefully my arguments aren't TLDR. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll add input, but I messed up the last AFD I started so I would be no real help there. It is a bit confusing.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the oversized pamphlet cover image meet fair use allowability or is it a copyright violation? 72Dino (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that the pamphlet is copyrighted, but I'm no expert on fair use. As I've stated elsewhere, I don't think the article needs the pamphlet illustration, and I also think it's too large (It's poking into the next section in my browser, making stuff hard to read). My go-to guy for copyright/commons issues has been User:ARTEST4ECHO, but it appears that he's taking some time off at the moment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The use of the image is to show the publication itself as published by the LDS church as discussed in the prose as still being dispursed to church members. The default size is thumb|upright produces the smallest default size. Reduction of images below default is not appropriate. All Fair use criteria are met and full rationals with proper templates used and filled in per guidelines and policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Scope of the article (cont)

So it looks like the AfD isn't going to go anywhere, which is kind of what I expected; it's nice to have it out of the way though, and I had fun writing it up. If you don't mind, I'd like to take a stab at defining a "scope" for the article that we can all agree upon, and perhaps some of the extra "eyes" we have on the article currently could add their thoughts as well.

Here's what I'm proposing: I think the article should deal primarily with violence in Mormon doctrine and religiously motivated violence. It should talk about when violence is considered "ok" in Mormon doctrine (there are a few cases, such as self-defense). It should give a history of how those doctrines developed, (i.e. during the religious persecution in Missouri, etc.) and should document the history of religious violence against Mormons. It should talk about violence committed by Mormons (eg. Danites, Mountain Meadows) showing the relationship between the two.

• This is too narrow a focus for mainstream academic sources. I do not dispute the inclusion of such material if all claims likely to be disputed have citations to RS that support claims within Wikipedia policy and guidelines but feel seeking such consensus might be considered POV pushing. A very drastic accusation and one I assure you I am not making, but we must not attempt to "define" articles as if we can control the future route or direction of such. Control of keeping the scope so narrow could be an ownership issue as well to some. Best to go by what the mainstream thought is on scope. We have more than enough sources for reference to direction and if it should go too far one way or another. Now, I need to be clear about what I see as a POV term..."Self defense". Now, I for one feel that to claim any sort of self defense in doctrine would need a source to make any such claim. Remember that self defense requires an act agaisnt the person needing to be defended. If two Mormon Bishops don't call it self defense then why would we?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The article should not talk about random violence against people who happen to be Mormons, and it should not talk about violence committed by people who just happen to be Mormons. People who identify as Mormons are both victims and aggressors in run-of-the-mill violence, and if there's no tie to Mormonism, other than one of the people being Mormon, there's no reason to include it in this article. In short, if a somebody assaults someone because he's a Mormon, then it belongs in the article. If not, no.

• I sort of agree with this, however we have to go with the claims, statements, opinion and fact of the RS and what the context is and whether it is just a news item of a ramdom event or a well documented case with academic claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There are two grey areas I'm worried about: Mormon violence against blacks, and Mormon violence against homosexuals. The reason I'm worried is because Mormon attitudes towards blacks and gays were/are very similar to the majority of American Christian society. For instance, it isn't clear, at least to me, how much of Mormon discrimination against blacks was just part of the racism that was so prevalent before the Civil Rights Movement, and how much was because of church doctrine. Likewise, anti-gay-ness is hardly unique to Mormonism. At the same time, for some reason it was the Mormons who took all the heat during the Proposition 8 thing, so it deserves some mention, I'm just not sure how much. (I recently found a Dialogue article on that, by the way ([17]). My current feeling is that the article should mention these two groups cautiously, perhaps hinting at the problems I've just mentioned, without trying to imply that whatever violence occurred was entirely due to Mormon doctrine.

• All of these are delicate issues, however we do not deny that the US held slaves and we do document when slavery was abolished and there are many references to the "Church". The UK abolished slavery even earlier than the US but we still document when they did. In other words it's a matter of both historic value and accurate current events. It could be argued that historic significance of the Prop 8 "violence" and the church's stance against homosexuality is a balance issue and should be weighted in terms the overall value it has and may have in the history of the events and subjects in question. I would cite as an example the Prop 8 contributions by editors at the article for a company that had an employee who became controversial over the entire Prop 8 thing. Here is my point (I am getting there) a mention of this person here would be random. Even though one could argue that it is in context to a violent reaction to Prop 8. There is some mention of this person still on Wikipedia and I think it should not and perhaps some day I will remove it. It may have been real important to a bunch of people for a little while but does that qualify for mention on the article. No. Some things are indeed just random incidents. I do think there are limits.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, that's my proposal. What are your thoughts on these points? ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

@Adjwilley, I basically agree with your proposal, though I would frame the issue slighly differently. This is an article about "Mormonism and violence", not "Mormons and violence". Thus, the scope should be about how Mormon doctrine and practice relates to violence, either on the offensive or defensive end. Specific examples of violence that involves Mormons is not part of the topic, unless the violence, or the reaction to violence, somehow directly relates to Mormon doctrine. Thus, the violence in 1833 Missouri is relevant only because there are D&C passages that say Mormons can retaliate after the third offense, etc.

As to the issue of Moromon violence against blacks and LGBT people, this type of violence is only relevant to the extent that it directly relates to Mormon doctrine. The fact that some Mormon killed or castrated a black man is not enough. A secondary source has to link the killing or castration to Mormon doctrine or policy (including Brigham Young's theocratic policy). The fact that some Mormons beat up a gay man is not enough. A secondary source has to link that beating somehow to Mormon doctrine or policy. On the Proposition 8 material, I don't think any of it belongs in this article. Vandalism is not violence.

@Amadscientist, I share your concern that we don't artificially limit the scope of the article, but I think that the article is well defined by its title. The "-ism" is very important.

COGDEN 09:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. There's still kind of a sticky issue with Packer's To Young Men Only pamphlet. Does Packer's statement about young men defending themselves (against sexual advances) qualify as a Mormon doctrine on violence, and how much weight should it get in the article? ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I get the point about the "ism" and not directly about the Mormons as a group or individual. I think the point you are making is, the article is not about the Mormons or the LDS church in relation to violence, but the line being drawn at "Mormonism" as it relates to doctrine and practice. In other words it is about an application of theologigal ideals and practices in relation to violence. I agree that the prop 8 stuff does not belong. I really don't think vandalism applies to violence, but do remember an opponant editor on this subject refer to Vandalism as being defined as an act of violence, but see now that there is no mention of it as such. Whether it is or not seems disputed and i would have to agree on that as well on top of my previous statement that it was fleeting in historic terms and balance to the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a well-known problem with articles such as Christianity and violence in distinguishing between the relationship of the religion to violence and the fact that some adherents of the religion have perpetrated violent acts. WRT the "To Young Men" declaration, I would say that when a high-level leader of a religion makes a pronouncement that is clearly meant to be church doctrine and not a personal opinion, then it is relevant to this kind of an article. Packer's statement is kind of borderline in that it is not 100% clear whether he is speaking of his own personal opinion or as a leader of the church. He seems to be saying, "It would be unseemly for a church leader to commit violence but I personally approve of this violence even though I am a church leader." Perhaps the best approach is to include it in the context of the fact that others (presumably gay rights activists) criticize him for having made this statement. That is, his personal opinion is not encyclopedic in and of itself but the public nature of his statement and the public response to it is encyclopedic. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we are not talking about personal opinion or there would not be a claim. The Packer comments are published and have been passed out to LDS families and it is sourced with secondary, published claims including an LDS secondary, published source...not primary.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

@Adjwilley, I think Packer's comments are pertinent to this article. Whether his comments are read as encouraging gay-bashing" or "self-defense," either one is a form of violence. It has also been the cause of a fair amount of discussion in the secondary sources. It's one of the few modern examples of Mormon theology relating to violence. However, the current section on the subject is way over the top. The long quotations need to go, for starters, and the section needs to be significantly shortened. There is no way that the Packer topic should be longer than the blood atonement section, for example.

@Amadscientist, I also agree that the Prop 8 vandalism was fleeting and had little historical significance. But my main objection is that vandalism is not violence. It is damage to property. It is "violence" only in a metaphorical sense, if that. The violence article contains a good definition that I think reflects the consensus of English speakers that "violence" involves physical force or power against individuals which is likely to cause them harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudo-Richard (talk • contribs)

Yes, but I had to mention it because the last consensus on this used the Wikipedia page and a former version of it that described vandlsim as an act of violence and I didn't take the time to look further and agreed to it's use based on that. I do feel now that it is not violence in the true context of this article's scope.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

@Pseudo-Richard, I don't think it matters whether Packer's views have, or had, the authority of official church doctrine. He is and was a prominent LDS leader, his statements were originally at an official church forum, and his pamphlet was widely distributed by the LDS church, so I think that makes it relevant to Mormonism circa the 1970s. COGDEN 19:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we all agree the Packer comments belong in the article; My main concern is that they're too long. A paragraph or two should suffice; a six paragraph section, complete with two quote boxes and a picture of the pamphlet is over the top, as I believe Richard said. I was trying to crop it back in this edit.

@Amadscientist, what would you think of cropping the section back to a longish paragraph, sans picture? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep the picture, the quotes and the information and sources, but we can lose the quote boxes and I can also see what can be done to copy edit the Quinn information for brevity.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing the {{quotation}} templates and mashing 6 paragraphs into 4 does not shorten the section, and actually makes it harder to read. My concern is not that there are too many paragraphs. My concern is that the section is too long and contains too many long quotes. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent Copy edit

There are some POV concerns that the use of Wikipedia's voice of authority is being used to attempt to balance information in a non-encyclopedic manner by presenting ony directly equal space to both critcism of the church and the church's response using only primary examples in an overly POV manner to chop down a well sourced section far beyond what is being discussed on the talk page. So to adapt what has already there I would like to at least state what I don't have a problem with. I don't have a real problem with the Packer information NOT being it's own section. I don't have a problem with the full quotes being removed from the prose, HOWEVER as this is a publication of the printed statements of Mormon doctrine and I am seeing a use of primary source material as only mentioned in an opinion peice in Ensign from a church leader that I believe had a hand in writing. I would argue that we lose all such primary uses and we accept perfectly well referenced and cited secondary, published material with due weight. I do have a dispute with a good portion of what was excluded but I will look at how the section can be be adapted from that edit. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand your concern here, so allow me to restate the problem in my own words.

1. In 1976 LDS Apostle Packer gives a sermon in a "General Conference" which, among other things, urges young men to defend themselves against unwanted sexual advances. The sermon skips the Ensign where such sermons are usually published, but is published as a pamphlet and widely distributed.
2. In 2000, Historian Michael Quinn publishes in Dialogue criticizing Packer's sermon, saying it endorses "gay bashing".
3. In 1995, LDS Apostle Oaks publishes in Ensign saying "[o]ur doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called 'gay bashing'".

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that #1 and #2 should be in the article, but #3 shouldn't. Is that accurate? If so, are you disputing it because you disagree with it, or because you believe that Oaks is a primary source? Also, if Oaks is a primary source, what is Packer? Would you mind responding to these three questions? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that. You actually skipped a publication from Quinn. look, if you want a circular argument about Enign magzine as a RS, be my guest. i have made no such claim. But...Ensign is both a publication as relaible sourcing of some information for fact, but is also a publication of the LDS Church and cannot be used to refernce claims of an Apsotle of the church. That shouldn't be that hard to understand, as well using "God loveth his Children" isn't being used correctly within policy for POV. You are using a publication of the partial subject (the LDS church) as primary sourcing for an opinion. GLHC was published in the Ensign about church doctrine and Oaks opinion is only in context to the Enign AS a primary source speaking directly about "Gay bashing" but not directly that it having to do WITH QUINN. Oaks comments can be used as a primary source for church doctrine against the basic idea or concept of any violence against LGBT from the LDS church...becuase it speaks directly to that fact. It is synthesis to use the primary source of Oaks comments in any direct respose to direct criticism from a named person. Possible BLP issue in that you are stating this as if Oaks was commenting on Quinn. Is he? No. He is commenting on gay bashing only. You can't try to use GLHC and the Oaks comment as argument against every single direct crticism individuals make. We do not work that way.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's clarify a couple things here. First: "God Loveth His Children" is not being cited at all in the article. I removed it 8 days ago (while you were accusing me of edit warring) and you didn't put it back when you "undid" my edit. Second, you say that, "Oaks comments can be used as a primary source for church doctrine against the basic idea or concept of any violence against LGBT from the LDS church". I say that is exactly how Oaks comment is being used: as a source for church doctrine against LGBT violence. That's what the section is about. The paragraph is talking about gay bashing. Oaks is talking about gay bashing. It's relevant.

Also, I noticed you sidestepped my questions. Are you disputing Oaks comments because you disagree with them, or for some other reason? And what's the difference between Oaks and Packer? Why should we cite Packer but not Oaks? ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Primary vs. secondary sources

Adjwilley has suggested that there is a problem with text that presents Mormon doctrine regarding violence and cites primary sources (e.g. the Book of Mormon). He is right that there is a problem but that doesn't mean the text should be removed unless it is disputed or otherwise incorrect. If the text presents an accurate exposition of Mormon doctrine, then the problem is that the text should be cited to a secondary source such as a book on Mormon doctrine. This could either be an LDS book or a non-LDS book. The key is that Wikipedia editors should not take on the role of interpreting primary sources such as sacred scripture. We should report on what others describe Mormon doctrine to be. There may, of course, be more than one view of what Mormon doctrine is and, if that is the case, WP:NPOV dictates that we present all notable, verifiable POVs. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no absolute prohibition to citing primary sources. It's just that they have to be used very carefully. It is quite possible to use citations to the Book of Mormon appropriately. But the article just has to be careful not to take sides on any issue of interpretation of that text on which there are multiple prominent views. In some cases, it might be that we are using non-controversial interpretations of primary sources, and that is not necessarily a reason to delete the text, but it would be better to find secondary sources. COGDEN 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. I've seen citations to the Book of Mormon used effectively, and I've also seen many problems. From what I've seen in this article, the citations to the Book of Mormon are ok, however I don't think they'll be stable, because I've seen editors who would automatically delete such information, not because they think it's incorrect, but because it's cited to a primary source. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

To unstable at the moment to say anything is OK exactly. I have seen some uses of the primary source information not used in context to secondary claims. As long as a primary source is being used for basic information that is fine when in proper context and making no claims. Use of primary alone in many instances is quoting and when we are being asked to remove quotes from even secondary information, the use of primary sources with quotes becomes a valid concern.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing disputed tag from Bear River Massacre link in List of Mormon wars and massacres

I can understand why this might be up to some level of dispute, but I should note that the Bear River Massacre did involve many members of the LDS Church (most notably Porter Rockwell) and the aftermath of the events of that day did significantly impact members of the LDS Church, including how LDS Chapels were used to triage the wounded from that event and supplies from those in both Cache Valley and the rest of northern Utah were used for both the U.S. Army and the Shoshone. While not necessarily direct participants, it is ludicrous to think this event has nothing to do with Mormon history.

As such, I think the disputed nature of this link needs to simply be removed. This event certainly is fitting to belong together with the other events in the same list. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

World War II arguably affected members of the LDS Church far more in that generation than the Bear River Massacre (and it's antecedent events) did in that generation; however, regardless of it's significant impact to the church and church members, it would be ridiculous to call WWII a Mormon War. Neither of these two events are particularly Mormon in nature: neither were at the direction or control of LDS leaders, nor were a majority/plurality/significant portion of the participants on one side or the other Latter-day Saints. I continue to dispute that a Mormon nature can legitimately be ascribed to the Bear River Massacre and the events surrounding it. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to suggest that the Bear River Massacre was something done at the insistence of the LDS Church, nor are there any sources which suggest it so. Regardless, I do think it is a significant event in the history of the LDS Church, and the events surrounding this massacre likely would not have occurred had the LDS Church not been in Utah. Furthermore, the end result of having that massacre occur did result in the expansion of the "Mormon Empire" into south-eastern Idaho, which was effectively stopped until the Shoshone were removed from the picture after this event. This was not really an "American" event as it was so insignificant from a national level that it hardly merited any sort of mention in the eastern newspapers (it was mainly reported in the Salt Lake and California press at the time it occurred). Comparing this to World War II is really a strawman argument and something inappropriate.

I'll agree that of those who were the largest participants in the events of the Bear River Massacre were traditional Protestant Christian, notably Patrick Connor as well as the "gentile" political leaders of the Utah Territory at the time, and the war fervor of the U.S. Civil War played an important part of the event as well. The LDS Church leaders were mostly neutral bystanders (not really preventing it from happening, but not really encouraging it either), but the LDS Church was still the big elephant in the room when it happened and ultimately had to deal with the consequences of this event occurring. That certainly can't be said about the LDS Chruch's involvement in World War II... since you brought it up. Nothing happened in Utah (and still doesn't happen) without the LDS Church strongly involved on some level when major political decisions are being made. It was a major political decision to have the soldiers sent to northern Utah to "deal with" the Shoshone. As such, I firmly insist that it fits the definition of what is being suggested in terms of this particular list, that "wars and massacres involving significant numbers of LDS Church members" should include this particular event. At the very least, justify why the Black Hawk War should be included but the Bear River Massacre should not be included. It may be an ugly chapter in Mormon history, but that isn't justification for culling it from any such list either. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this comment by User:COGDEN above is relevant... "This is an article about "Mormonism and violence", not "Mormons and violence". Thus, the scope should be about how Mormon doctrine and practice relates to violence, either on the offensive or defensive end. Specific examples of violence that involves Mormons is not part of the topic, unless the violence, or the reaction to violence, somehow directly relates to Mormon doctrine." (The comment was from a discussion trying to define the scope of the article.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Mormonism and nonviolence

If you want to be neutral, maybe it should be mentioned that Utah has the 4th lowest murder rate in the United States. Gtbob12 (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Biased article

This article is strongly biased against Mormons and the views that their religion represents. Blanket generalizations are a writing fallacy very common to unsound writing, and this article is full of false information to go along with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.125.170 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 5 July 2013‎

It is also biased towards the church in many ways. The article needs more inline citations, some copy editing and checking of references. There has been a lot of editing going on without sourcing that appears to be strictly original research. The article needs cleanup.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: while I can see the good intent behind this edit, it has several problems. I understand the desire to have a "balanced" article, but in this case, history itself was not "balanced". Anyone familiar with the subject can tell you that early Mormonism got a really rough deal, and were on the wrong side of American vigilante-ism. Of course, there are instances of violence on both "sides", but to suggest that it was balanced is simply inaccurate. Moreover the claim you added that "Mormon adherents have...used significant violence throughout much of the religion's history" is simply false. There may also be some misunderstanding as to the scope of this article. This isn't about violence committed by and against Mormons (otherwise it would be titled "Mormons and violence"), it is about violence in Mormon theology (i.e. Mormonism) and how that has been influenced by and manifested itself in a few selected examples of violence. I agree that the article has a lot of problems, but these changes to the Lead aren't solving any of them, and are creating new ones. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to a couple pages from a source, so you don't have to take my word for it. [18] (The excerpt is from Mormonism: a very short introduction (2008) by Richard Bushman, something I think we all can agree is a reliable source.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with must of what you said. A lead section is for the summary of what is in the article and as I stated is not for the summary of the sources themselves. The article is supposed to be that. I also disagree with the over narrow definition of theological violence. That, again is not what the article is about...strictly. We have both been working on this article a while and I believe you know me as User:Amadscientist. I never agreed with the attempt to define this article in the manner that you and another editor attempted some time ago. I do not believe there is a consensus to define the article. I do believe the article lacks secondary sources in many places. I also believe that primary sources are being misused and are being used to quote scriptures in context to a specific subject or context for the article and that is an analysis of the primary source. The article needs some work...still.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I remembered the name Mark Miller being familiar, but I hadn't made the connection. Forgive me if I seemed to oversimplify things...I thought you were a complete newcomer to the article. My statement about the scope of the article reflects what I was saying before in our previous conversation as well as statements by User:COGDEN who created and wrote most of the article (and who I view as an expert in the subject area). Perhaps it is time that we sit down and decide what we want for the scope of the article, and that will help clear up some of the other problems. By the way, did you read the pages I linked? (I've got them in Dropbox, and I figure this is fair use, but I'm eventually going to break the link.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

At a glance of that source you provided above, my first question would be if I could see the previous pages only because it appears to discuss the LDS church in the South Pacific and that is a sub interest of mine. I have a relative I discovered in research had helped translate The Book of Mormon from English to ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi for the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 1898 and he was of a different faith. I'll read through them now.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see the direction you are taking and how the source used here emphasizes the violence in reaction to and of Mormons but even that is not what you are stating when you say that this is "about violence in Mormon theology - how that has been influenced by and manifested itself in a few selected examples of violence.". I love that COGDEN came back to edit and discuss, but being the originator of the article in no way influences what it somehow manifested itself into during a pretty controversial period while Proposition 8 was still a young and hot topic. The reason why the LGBT section has survived this long is because it is a part of the history of violence that was very well known, notable enough to mention and demonstrated both Mormonism and violence, both by and to the group as a church and its "beliefs" and that belief system. Mormonism is not a theological subject it is about the religious traditions of the Latter Day Saint movement throughout its history. The church has many traditions but this isn't about specific a ideology or theology. It should take a neutral view of the belief system itself and should not put the LDS Church on trial by the article or be a loving tribute. There should be sensitivity in wording not to be offensive. It should neither support or bash the subject.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a good opportunity to revisit this article, given the LDS church's recent apologetic response on this topic. I think the article needs a clean-up and the addition of good secondary sources. One of my main concerns with this article has been, how do we keep it focused on something we can clearly define, and how do we keep it from becoming a repository for stuff like vandalism of LDS churches? I think the focus should mainly be on institutional or doctrinal connections between Mormons and violence. I don't think that overly restricts the article. It still could go into violence with an indirect or incidental connection to Mormon theology or institutions. COGDEN 07:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Contentious edit?

Please see here, by a new editor. Seems a bit POV to me. 220 of ^Borg 04:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Mark Miller as a frequent contributor to this page. 220 of ^Borg 04:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mormonism and violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808055434/http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/EstZion/zionch11.htm to http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/EstZion/zionch11.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613164224/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C14730 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C14730
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613164239/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C4312 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C4312
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121215103706/http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/deseretnews1,175293 to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews1%2C175293
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927051038/http://byustudies.byu.edu/Shop/PDFSRC/11.4Jessee.pdf to https://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/PDFSRC/11.4Jessee.pdf
• Added archive https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20131021185159/http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/deseretnews3,156707 to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews3%2C156707
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews6%2C14057
• Added archive https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20131021171120/http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/deseretnews1,3298 to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews1%2C3298
• Added archive https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20131021171144/http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/deseretnews3,150800 to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews3%2C150800

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

New Section on Mormon Violence

RE:Violent Acts committed by Mormon members

First, Accesscrawl, Just because a newspaper is quoted does not mean you should delete a whole subheading (addition) that took much time, work and effort.  You might not like the information but that doesn't prove that it is not fit for an encyclopedia.  Please provide proof.  Referring to[19]] does not justify your deletion. Please provide evidence why it is not fitting.   As mentioned, "news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics."  Please talk about this before you delete added content.  03:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Such incidents happen everyday and they should be notable enough to be included here. Read WP:NOTNEWS. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes perhaps, but church shooting are rare and who has ever heard of one's own member shooting up their own church? That is history in the making! In addition, school shootings are also indeed very notable. Therefore, I wonder which is not notable a member trying to kill his brothers while in the ward or a teenage shooting up his school? I didn't say anything about the St George stabbing of Elizabeth Carter by her "friend" Kevin Ray Mcatlin.`68.45.70.159 (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure that separate articles can be created about each of the incidents that you want to be included? I don't think so. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean separate articles. If you find a way to combine the paragraphs, then by all means tweak them. This is all team work. They are in separate paragraphs since there are two major events that happened. Is that what you mean by separate articles??? You might have a good suggestion on making sure it is not filled up with the everyday occurrences of violent acts. For example, maybe the heading would be better if it read, "Significant acts of violence..." Or "Notorious acts" or the like. Good point Accesscrawl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.70.159 (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Luizpuodzius:

Poderias traduzir caso queira e possa? 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:6CC9:6D70:438D:1B98 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Violence in the Book of Mormon

I'm working on drafting a page on this topic, but the section here is largely scriptural citations and the work I can find on it is largely apologetic (or anti-Mormon). Does anyone have a good author or resource to consult for analysis of BoM violence that doesn't rely on the reader's bias or the text itself? I've been doing research so I should have enough to start but I'm trying to broaden my scope. Thanks! BenBeckstromBYU (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"attacked and killed a member of the Missouri state militia"

The phrasing above is vague/inaccurate, and probably needs to be changed. It implies Mormons deliberately or premeditatedly targeted an individual.

But the Battle of Crooked River, which the phrase links to, was an expedition aimed to rescue hostages held by a militia unit, rather than targeting the militiamen. The Mormons were even unaware that the captors were members of the state militia. Gottagitgud (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Mormon Wars

I believe that the Mormon War disambiguation page warrants expansion into a article. The 'Mormon Wars' where a series of connected and related conflicts.I also think this goes with the Latter-day Saint Milita and Latter-day Saints Miltary Units split ongoing with the Nauvoo Legion. LuxembourgLover (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree and I think it's precisely the opposite situation from the Nauvoo Legion article. The "Mormon Wars" share the label, but they were completely distinct, regional conflicts with different characteristics, causes, and players.

- The Jackson County, MO pogrom in 1833 involved disorganized mobs of 10-50 people.

- The Missouri War involved more organized militias (100-200 people).

- The siege of Nauvoo was a larger scale conflict involving a more formalized military force.

- The Utah War was even a more unique conflict, which did not result in any battles, but just a tense standoff between the US government and the Mormon settlers.

Absent a significant number of scholarly reliable sources studying these conflicts as part of an overarching narrative, which could be used as citations for such an article, efforts could be better concentrated on improving their distinct articles. Gottagitgud (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)