Talk:Anti-Mormonism/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Anti-Mormonism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Bold" Rewrite

So, I tried to "be bold" and I did a complete re-write of the page. I chopped out a lot of material, I hope I don't offend anyone by chopping out their favorite part, but my main goals were:

provide a solid framework for re-integrating old material
provide solid sources for main claims
reference "main articles" wherever possible, sticking mostly to descriptions rather than specific debates
try to at least provide some semblence of NPOV (I realize this may be a fruitless task for this article in general, much less for one person to attempt)

Please proof-read, give feedback, and let me know if you think this article is on the right track. Thanks! --Dlugar 21:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I have placed the POV tag back on the article. It may have been a kneed-jerk reaction to ANON166's edits, but I think it best. I find the vast majority of his edits compeltely POV. Rather than get into an endless edit war, I felt it best to just tag.

Dlugar did an admirable job and was correct in stating that it may be a fruitless task on this article. We can always hope, but evidence is not seen yet. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is not balanced, fair, and directly serves an opponent interest (explicitly against POV policy). It is an exercise in mind control and brainwashing, primarily because of its assumption that Mormons are entitled to label anyone they want as anti-Mormon to protect their bigoted and biased opinions of other races, religions, gender, and two-valued thinking about leavers and disbelievers. This is not a race or religious freedom argument they have ever honored for others. The either "for us or against us" mindset is harbored by this anti-Mormon label, and the persecution complex unofficially serves Mormon propaganda to hate Exmormons and other Christians who dare to disagree with Mormon positions against them. Anon166 18:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Dlugar, you have successfully converted a wet pile of dung to a dry state. I congratulate you on this feat, because I don't think it was easy for you. Seriously. Anon166 19:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon166, I'm not sure if that's intended as a compliment, but I'll gladly take it as one! :) --Dlugar 02:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Mormonism/Scare Quotes

Church Discipline and Anti-Mormonism

Official doctrine may lend itself to this controversy, which does not discourage labeling those who disagree, offer criticism, or portray Mormonism in less than a faith-promoting way as anti-Mormon, thus stigmatizing sources of information. This reflects an institutional bias that explicitly does not allow one to agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church, if a member is to obtain temple-going status.^[1]

I'm snipping this part temporarily because I don't think it belongs in the "Mormon Views" section, but I think it's good material and deserves its own section.

(later) I've added the section Latter Day Saint avoidance of Anti-Mormonism. Hopefully that addresses most of your concerns, Anon166! --Dlugar 04:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the article gives the impression that you can't be a good Mormon and read anti-Mormon literature, which I don't think is true. I've given church firesides on anti-Mormon literature, and have waded through tons of it sent by my brother. Some leaders may have discouraged people from reading such material, but I don't think you could call it church doctrine. The temple interview question basically asks if we *agree* with any apostate and/or anti-mormon organization, not if we are familiar with them. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point, although some people definitely think that it is true that you can't be a good Mormon and read anti-Mormon literature. (Not saying that's doctrinal; just saying that some people believe it.) On the one hand, I think all the Mormon apologist links on this page make it somewhat clear that Mormons are allowed to read anti-Mormon literature (how could you be an apologist otherwise?), but maybe we should try and find a quote/reference (preferably given from a talk from a 70 or higher) that basically says "you can be a good Mormon and read anti-Mormon literature"? --Dlugar 16:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, anti-mormon literature helped convert me to the church. I also remember reading in "No More Strangers"(?) about another person who was converted after reading anti-mormon literature. Essentially, if you take to time to check their claims, it becomes very clear that they are using a lot of deception in their materials. If the church wasn't true, and they had some legitimate criticisms against the church, then why would they use such deceptive approaches? It seemed to me that was a good argument that the church might be true. That is basically how I finally got my brother to quit reading anti-mormon material. I challenged him to prove one of the claims, and when he couldn't, he realized that the material couldn't be trusted. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration

This article was selected as the Mormon Collaboration of the Month for June 2006. There is no guarantee, but I hope this will be an opportunity to make a lot of improvements to the article. uriah923^(talk) 14:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Organization

The article is already somewhat in this form, but I think it would be good to follow the example of Anti-Americanism as far as organizing into these sections:

Intro
Use of the term
History
Modern Anti-Mormonism
Criticisms of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Criticisms of Anti-Mormonism
See also
Notes and references
External links

Of course, as was said earlier on this talk page, the focus of the article should be the term Anti-Mormonism and not a re-hashing of criticism of Mormonism. The section on that topic should be brief and reflect this. In any case, if we can agree on this outline, then I suggest we expand the outline with general descriptions and then get to work. uriah923^(talk)

One comment--I don't think the "Sympathetic to anti-Mormonism" and "Unsympathetic to anti-Mormonism" are particularly good sections for this page. First, because criticism of Mormonism already exists, and second, because most people labeled "anti-Mormon" reject the term, so you won't find them saying things like "anti-Mormonism is good!" Hence I'm moving the links there to the section entitled "responses to Anti-Mormons". --Dlugar 15:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I lied. :-) One more comment. Looking through the article again, I'm trying to see what the difference is between your suggested outline and what currently exists. I'm happy with everything except for the "Criticisms of the Church" and the "Criticisms of Anti-Mormonism" headings. I think those names attempt to create more of a debating tone that exists on criticism of Mormonism, not a descriptive tone that I think sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 create. I also think that "Latter Day Saint views on Anti-Mormonism" is better than just saying "Criticisms of Anti-Mormonism", because it gives us more freedom to talk about things like anti-Mormonism as "spiritual pornography", which isn't really a criticism per se, but is definitely a "view on Anti-Mormonism". "Responses to Anti-Mormons" fits well under there as well, much better than a "Criticisms of Anti-Mormonism", which kind of implies that Anti-Mormonism is a category which can be rebutted as a whole, rather than responding to individual statements and assertions. What do you think? --Dlugar 15:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you make some good points. How about this revised outline:

Intro
Use of the term
History
Modern anti-Mormonism
- Christian groups
- Ex-Mormons
- Secular groups
Explanations of anti-Mormonism
- Official views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
- Views among Latter-day Saints
- Other views
See also
Notes and references
External links

I think it's good to keep the "critical views" non-specific to be able to include all views. You may be correct about the "sympathetic" and "unsympathetic" titles, but the external links should still go in an "external links" section, and I think it's important to categorize them - but we can do that later. By the way, if you're interested, you might want to check out the Mormon collaboration that I run. It's a relatively new thing, but we've done some good work. uriah923^(talk) 18:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Point taken regarding the external links. I think they're fine how they are now; if we need to categorize them later we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Regarding the revised outline, something is bothering me about the separation between "Ex-Mormons" and "Secular groups". I don't know of a single "anti-Mormon" group/person who is not either Christian or Ex-Mormon. And the latter group consists of Ex-Mormons-turned-Christian (typically your Tanner/Decker bible-thumping variety), or Ex-Mormons-turned-[unaffiliated? secular?] (your ExMormons.org-type folks). Any thoughts?

And finally, I'm still a bit turned off by the "Critical views" name--it seems like it's saying, "Anti-Mormonism is wrong because [list of reasons]", whereas the section is really more about "Here's what we think about anti-Mormonism" or "Here's why we think anti-Mormonism exists"--there's no real debate or argument in this section, nor do I think there should be. That may be a subsection (like the "Responses to Mormonism" subsection which I now realize has disappeared), although I'd prefer to keep that out of the picture (i.e. in a separate article) completely. In order to be inclusive of the sort of statements like Smith's and Nibley's, I think the section name should be something broader than simply "Critical Views of Anti-Mormonism". What do you think? --Dlugar 04:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed "critical views" to "explanations of," which I think accomplishes for what you were looking - and I agree it is better that way. I think "secular views" should stay as it will catch all anti-Mormonism that doesn't fit in the first two. If it turns out there isn't anything to put in the section, it's easy enough to remove.

I think the outline looks good to go. If there aren't any protests, I'll start implementing it. uriah923^(talk) 05:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

How about just "Views of"? The "avoidance of" section still doesn't seem to fit well under a section called "explanations of", although I'm not sure it's that much better in a "Views of" section. I guess we can leave it until the content in those sections settles down a bit, then examine it again? --Dlugar 18:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. uriah923^(talk) 20:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

References

After reformatting the article, I realize that many of the references are of poor quality. Although this is a topic oft debated on the Internet, your average internet blog or debate doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I removed a couple of the obvious places, but I think (for example) comments on LDS church doctrine shouldn't be referenced to unofficial sites - even if they are FARMS or FAIR. uriah923^(talk) 21:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

On that note, I find Jeff Lindsay's self-published site quoting his own opinion on his reason for existence to be a triple no-no, almost a self-parody here. If he were quoting his own statistics it might still be original research, but that would be at least a good faith entry and not a desperate attempt to justify demonizing the skepticism or debunking of Mormon claims. Anon166 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for cleaning up all those references! In many cases I just had a URL, not even an author or anything. It is so much nicer and cleaner now. With regards to the quality of references, I realize that some of them are of particularly poor quality, but I would hope that rather than just removing the material we're able to get better-quality references instead. Are there any in particular you're thinking of? Also, I don't see any problem with comments on LDS church doctrine being referenced from FARMS or FAIR as long as they are clearly denoted as comments, not as definitive doctrine. --Dlugar 03:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the content can usually stay, but the references just need to be upgraded in general. The first step, though, is to organize the site. Then we can concentrate on a section at a time and upgrade/add references as needed. uriah923^(talk) 05:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

anti-Mormon or Anti-Mormon?

Our capitalization is a bit haphazard. Some places it's anti-Mormon, other places it's Anti-Mormon. Should we pick one and stick to it? --Dlugar 04:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "anti-Mormon" is the proper capitalization. Let's stick to that. uriah923^(talk) 05:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

While we're talking about capitalization, I'd like to standardize on "Exmormon," as that seems to be the usage on exmormonism. Any objections? uriah923^(talk) 22:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I did a quick Google search and found "Exmormon", "exmormon", "Ex-Mormon", and "ExMormon" all in relatively equal numbers. There doesn't seem to be any sort of standard, so I'm fine with "Exmormon". --Dlugar 22:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable content

I removed much (all?) of the content mentioning Richard Packhan, but Anon166 reinstated it here. I'll leave it for now to avoid an edit war, but I would like to know why this guy deserves to be in the article? uriah923^(talk) 05:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

He's probably one of [the?] most well-known atheist/humanist figures in the secular Exmormon world. I didn't realize he has his own Wikipedia page (Richard Packham), or that he started the Exmormon Foundation, so I personally feel that simply linking to the Exmormon foundation and his Wikipedia page in the same sentence are sufficient--I don't know how much the other content really adds to the page. Especially since he doesn't even really talk about the term "Anti-Mormon", and he's not on your stereotypical lists of Anti-Mormons. But if Anon166 really wants him in the article I guess there's not a big reason to take him out, as far as I'm concerned. Thoughts? --Dlugar 15:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if he is mentioned in the article, but we should just treat him as what he is: a "well-known atheist/humanist figure in the secular Exmormon world." I guess we can address this as we filter through each section. uriah923^(talk) 15:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"...treat him as what he is"? I find this statement to harbor a bias with an agenda that equates status with beliefs. Forcing a label as to non-beliefs is enforcing a POV labeling system, and suggests that the "anti-Mormon" label is just an extension of this mindset. It is not far removed from forcing people to wear armbands in Nazi Germany to designate people whose beliefs are blacklisted or not mainstream or pure. I would be very careful on pursuing a POV labeling system, it would backfire here if we labeled all the "anti-Mormons" as "undisputed Christians" Anon166 19:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

By "treat him as what he is" I mean we shouldn't give him an disproportionate amount of coverage in the article if his notability doesn't warrant it. I didn't apply a label. uriah923^(talk)

Conference Protesters

"as well as engaging in low-level physical annoyances, offensive language and actions."

"or by carrying signs intended to poke fun at the anti-Mormons in order to defuse provocation."

What are "low-level physical annoyances"? Seems too vague to put in an encyclopedia article. I'm not really sure this sentence adds anything at all--"harass conference-goers" seems plenty. "carrying signs"--I removed this in my earlier rewrite because I couldn't find references--are there any now? Also the judgment calls "intended to poke fun" and "in order to defuse provocation" seem to be assuming the intent; without references that explicitly say that's what they're for, I think it's going a little far. --Dlugar 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unless we have references for the information, it shouldn't be included. uriah923^(talk) 20:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the two portions in question. What's with all this agreement on the talk page?! It seems like everyone's getting along and coming to reasonable compromises rather than having heated arguments and endless edit-wars! What's Wikipedia coming to?!! --Dlugar 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Official view of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

This seems like it's going to be a hard one. I did some lds.org searching and all I could come up with were these three articles:

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1982.htm/ensign%20november%201982%20.htm/pure%20religion.htm

The poet Robert Frost once defined education as “the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.” Probably we will never be free of those who are openly anti-Mormon. Therefore, we encourage all our members to refuse to become anti-anti-Mormon. In the wise words of old, can we “live and let live”?

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1981.htm/ensign%20november%201981.htm/opposition%20to%20the%20work%20of%20god.htm

Since the spring of 1820, Lucifer has led a relentless attack against the Latter-day Saints and their leaders. A parade of anti-Christs, anti-Mormons, and apostate groups have appeared on the scene. Many are still among us and have released new floods of lies and false accusations. These faith-killers and testimony-thieves use personal contacts, the printed word, electronic media, and other means of communication to sow doubts and to disturb the peace of true believers.

Two months ago we received a tender letter from a bishop. He informed us that he had been involved in an excommunication of a recent convert. The new convert had fallen under the influence of a very dedicated apostate who was successful in destroying the convert’s testimony. It seems that, to discredit Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets, the apostate cited changes made in Church publications over the years.

...Avoid those who would tear down your faith. Faith-killers are to be shunned. The seeds which they plant in the minds and hearts of men grow like cancer and eat away the Spirit.

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1997.htm/ensign%20november%201997.htm/some%20thoughts%20on%20temples%20retention%20of%20converts%20and%20missionary%20service.htm

(story about a convert with an "anti-Mormon" fiancee who left the Church and had his name removed, but according to Pres. Hinckley "still has a testimony")

Any ideas of the sort of material that should populate this section? --Dlugar 18:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of thing that should be used in this section. uriah923^(talk) 20:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I will be interested in how this shapes up. Anti-evolution has many such official references in Mormon speeches, but leaders are often quoted as saying that the LDS church does not have an official view on it. Anon166 21:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, but pro-evolution (or, rather, evolution-neutral) statements are found throughout Mormon speeches as well. In fact, I had a Mormon biology teacher pass out a packet of information with all sorts of quotes from General Authorities and the like full of pro-evolution content.

I thought it would be easier to find consensus on a topic like anti-Mormonism, but you've got a wide range of Mormon opinion expressed here in just these three articles: live and let live; faith-killers are to be shunned; and exmormons still have testimonies. Still looking for an official "you can be a good Mormon and read anti-Mormon literature" statement like wrp103 was looking for. Don't know how likely it is to find anything as explicit as Mr. Cancerous Testimony-Thieves. --Dlugar 21:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons I'm concerned about giving the impression that good Mormons don't read anti-Mormon literature is that one of the techniques used is to make it sound like most Mormons don't know about whatever deep, dark secret they claim to be exposing.

Perhaps the fact that only three entries could be found by searching lds.org indicates that the topic really isn't discussed that often. I imagine that if you were living in Utah or some other location with lots of Mormons it would get discussed often, but I don't remember ever hearing anti-Mormon material being discussed in the Philly area. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 21:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that most Mormons do know the "deep, dark secrets". If you frequent exmormon bulletin boards, you constantly run into people who are like, "Did you know that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy?! I couldn't believe it! That's why I left the Church." I think this is especially true in recent years when the "deep doctrines" of the church are no longer generally discussed in most places. For older members of the church, stuff like polygamy and Kolob have been discussed and talked about for ages. But nowadays, you can be a completely active member of the Church for years without ever knowing about the priesthood ban.

It's a tricky balance, I think. On the one hand, there's a definite tendency for Church members to view anti-Mormon materials as being completely off-limits, avoid-at-all-costs, testimony-thieving Satan-inspired trickery--but on the other hand, simply reading anti-Mormon stuff [typically] isn't going to get you in ecclesiastical trouble. The problem is that (at least in my experience) there are far more quotes talking about the former than there are about the latter. --Dlugar 21:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always liked the comment by Nibley in an article comparing different anti-mormon books that couldn't agree on what Joseph Smith looked like. He said something about if they couldn't get his physical appearance right, how could anyone trust their interpretation of his ideas? He then went on to say that the only danger was if you read only one anti-mormon article. As you read more articles, you find so many contradictions that they become less dangerous. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph about some members reading anti-mormon material. I still haven't got the knack of references (thanks to whoever fixed my reference to AoF 8 - I finally gave up), so I would appreciate it if somebody could add the references for me (or point me to where I can learn how to do it better). The ignorance of apologist materials came from "Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It", which was linked to from Jeff Lindsay's site, and the list of questions for anti-mormons is a page on Jeff's site. Thanks! wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I figured them out, but would still like it if somebody could check what I did. The Mosser/Owen article was also published in a journal. Should that be noted someplace? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out this page for information on citations. There is one there for citations from journals. uriah923^(talk) 04:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I figured those out OK, but what I had trouble with was scripture citations using wikisource. How should I have found the reference for the 8th Article of Faith, for example? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I browsed around at wikisource and the stuck information from the URL at the desired reference into this format: {{sourcetext|source= |book= |chapter= |verse= }}. For example, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pearl_of_Great_Price/Abraham#Chapter_4 would result in {{sourcetext|source=Pearl of Great Price |book= Abraham |chapter = 4 |verse= 6}}, or Abraham 4:6.

avoidance of anti-Mormonism

"Anti-mormon material often implies that the claims made have never been countered by Mormons"

I can't find how the referenced page supports this statement. I'm not particularly sure it's true, either--most of the anti-Mormon material I've seen acknowledges the existence of FARMS, FAIR, etc., but either doesn't accept their explanations or believes the apologists' arguments are flawed in some way. I don't think it's particularly useful to have statements in the article like, "Mormon apologists claim that anti-Mormon material implies that the claims have never been countered by Mormons, while anti-Mormons believe that the claims have never been adequately addressed by Mormons." I mean, it's pretty self-evident that a Mormon apologist thinks anti-Mormon claims are bunk and that an anti-Mormon thinks that apologist writings are bunk. In addition, I think Lindsay's "Questions for Anti-Mormons" belongs more in the "criticisms of Mormonism" article than in a (what I think should be a primarily descriptive) article about anti-Mormons. Thoughts? --Dlugar 19:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to counter the suggestion that Mormons don't read anti-Mormon materials (since good mormons can read anti-mormon materials ;^). I've reworded the paragraph and changed the section to "attitudes" instead of "avoidance". Does this make more sense now? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the editing of non-Mormon belief of political pressure influencing abandonment of polygamy and racial priesthood restrictions

First off, as I mentioned in the edit summary, this article is vastly improved lately. Excellent work, everyone who has helped bring this about.

I am offering this explanation (nearly) contemporaneously with this edit, since I think some people may question how it furthers NPOV. It was in the interests of furthering NPOV by presenting an explanation for the sentiments of the non-Mormons, in replacement of a previous, not-very-NPOV explanation that was edited out here.

Only mentioning that "Critics of Mormonism believe that opposition to Mormonism that was labeled anti-Mormon has been politically responsible for the pressures that led to overturning the Mormon practices of polygamy and priesthood racial discrimination", without explaining any rationale for that belief, leaves the uninformed reader unable to tell whether those critics had any justification for their belief, or whether it simply illustrates their hubris and irrationality.

Explaining that there was a justification, which was "since these doctrines were abandoned after substantial political pressure, and without their former practice being officially repudiated", removes the onus from the critics to have some rationale other than hubris or cynicism; and these statements are objectively factual; both abandonments took place after substantial political pressure in opposition to the doctrines; and both were abandoned without the church authorities explicitly repudiating their former practice. In the case of polygamy, President Woodruff specifically said the Lord's motivation for revealing that the doctrine should be abandoned included the overwhelming practical difficulties that would be imposed on the church by continuing the practice (someone around here has that reference I'm sure), and the Official Declaration 1 is specifically worded in terms of not practicing polygamy out of respect for the laws of the land. With the former racial restrictions on priesthood, as my past discussions with Visorstuff covered, it is generally believed in the church that the restrictions were right at the time they were practiced, so that this doctrine also was not repudiated.

Concerning one other little tweak, from "These original Mormon doctrines..." to "These former Mormon doctrines...", it is attested to by all sides of the issues that the LDS church did not practice either polygamy or racial restrictions on priesthood as "original doctrines" of the Church, i.e. on April 6, 1830 or for at least a significant passage of time thereafter. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 04:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your changes are OK, but not perfect. We can come back to them later. As of now, we seem to be just wrapping up an article reorganization/restructuring after which my plan (at least) was to suggest the group start looking at one section at a time. uriah923^(talk) 04:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Since we seem to have a group of concerned editors working together on the article, is the NPOV tag necessary? I'm sure there is something in the article that could be improved in the way of NPOV, but the article as a whole is reasonable. What does everyone think about removing it? uriah923^(talk) 04:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone doesn't describe themselves as anti-, OR if some quote doesn't specify their opponent as anti-Mormon in this case, then it is a POV label that is not agreed upon. The casual reader is induced to believe that people mentioned here are objectively "anti-Mormon" or refer to themselves as anti-Mormon when they may only object to Mormon claims of supremacy, or Mormon anti-Catholicism, or former Mormon racism or polygamy. It also seems this article tacitly assumes that Exmormons are anti-Mormon if or when they intellectually justify their reason to leave to defend against the character smear offered by Mormons who typically label them as a digruntled sinner. In my view, this article doesn't have the proper explanatory warnings to the reader that steer it clear of a pure form of religious bigotry. The editors here seem to apologetical and biased to Mormonism, while very few of us here regard it as just another religion no better or worse than any other--I was even assumed to be anti- the day I dared edit it. Regardless, lacking any explanatory warning, I would go to the next level of POV warning, POV-check, for the interim. Having said that, I worry that the official LDS part to come will be a barn stuffer and bury the article in Mormon POV, which, by the way, this article is becoming a dumping ground for. Apologia is the flip side of polemics. Anon166 20:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is not whether the LDS Church is NPOV, but rather if the article is NPOV. This article is about the term "Anti-Mormon". It should be discussing how most / some LDS members use the term, as well as how non-LDS perceive and/or use (or not use) the term. That is not POV in and of itself. If the article were to present the information in a biased way, making prejudicial statements about one side or the other, then you could make a case about the article being POV. Your complaint, it appears, is more about the fact that you don't agree with the content of the article than the way the article is presented. The goal of an NPOV article is to present the facts in a manner that readers can understand both (all) sides of the issue. If it achieves that, then it is NPOV. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't share your dim outlook on the ability of this article or LDS editors to be objective, but I'll take the suggested compromise for now. uriah923^(talk) 20:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You say that as if you aren't LDS. Either way, I'm more interested in balancing the article to prevent it from serving as persecution propaganda with Wikipedia's blessing. The LDS church does not live by its "live and let live" policies in regards to anyone else, especially leavers. Missionaries knocking on Christian doors and informing them of their error in belief is offensive to them and provokes the non-Christian accusation, by way of common sense. Another example: LDS Inc. just issued an anti-gay-marriage political platform calling on members to get involved whether they agree or not. So, if and when a gay person objects to this tax-free politicizing against their equal rights, they are listed as anti-Mormon, or so we suppose. Hopefully not because of Wikipedia, and I'm sure others who aren't sworn to build the kingdom would agree. Mormons obtain their morals from LDS culture, so they don't register the hypocrisy in attacking and crying foul at the same time. Anon166 01:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what religion I am; I'm just as dedicated to preventing the article from "serving as persecution propaganda" as you are. It does seem odd to me, however, that you seem to have such an axe to grind ... in the name of NPOV. Kind of ironic. In any case, I'm sure that given our motives, we should have no problem putting together a quality article. uriah923^(talk) 02:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Uriah, my axe to grind is NPOV itself, not ironic at all, funny you should see it that way.Anon166 06:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it appears I misread you, although I'm having difficulty putting together what you are actually saying. I guess it doesn't really make much of a difference if I understand your overall philosophy, though. We can just address specific additions/deletions as they come along. uriah923^(talk) 13:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Rejection of the term

I moved a section from "Latter-day Saint Views" to a new top-level section "Rejection of the term", because I think the material is important and even central to the topic, but as Anon166 was pointing out it was getting swallowed in Mormon apologia. I would prefer that apologist content remain in the "Latter-day Saint Views" section rather than attempting to drown out the voice of those who reject the term itself. --Dlugar 02:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point and good addition. uriah923^(talk) 05:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Mormon books

What does everyone think about adding the following books to the lists? I'm not saying they should all be included (although that is a possibility), I just want to get a consensus on the scope of the lists and then beef up the content. For the Modern section:

For the History section:

I also came across a book by H. Nibley entitled "How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book," which most likely has a place in this article. There are also films that are considered anti-Mormon:

Lastly, should there be a section listing known anti-Mormon forgeries such as these? Perhaps even a mention of Mark Hofmann?

uriah923^(talk) 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the purpose of Wikipedia is to blacklist authors for the self-interests of the Mormon church. I would immediately place the POV tag on any booklist that could serves the purpose of DISRECOMMENDED reading in a theocratic environment. I wish editors here would read a book on prewar Nazi Germany and then acknowledge the danger in blacklisting a hate file on Wikipedia. Anon166 15:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how a list of the most prominent books considered anti-Mormon constitutes hate. In fact, using your Nazi Germany analogy, it would also be appropriate to list the books that the Nazis burned. That wouldn't indicate an acceptance of Nazi propaganda, only an objective representation of history. Similarly, a list in this context would only serve to inform the reader of the kind of material that is typically considered anti-Mormon without addressing the legitimacy of the claims in the books. What books are considered anti-Mormon is a matter of fact, not POV.

Getting back to the point, I think we should limit the list to ten, so I'll endeavor to pick out the ten most prominent works and then revamp the lists in the article. uriah923^(talk) 15:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Blacklists serve the purpose of banning authors and censoring ideas, which stymies authorship and research, and silences critics from fear. It basically does what many churches in history have done and still try to do, but not with Wikipedia's blessing. The difference between listing the books that Nazi's burned in the past after a defeat, and making of list of books to be burned in the future after a victory are two very different lists. I see where all this going and will put the POV tag back if any book is framed as something to be denied reading, outlawed, or something that it does not purport to be. I might also note that if the authors are not given their own balanced treatment before the fact, then mentioning their work serves no purpose other than to smear with a label. Anon166 16:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I included the books that I thought most prominent. I hope you can assume good faith here, as it is not my intention to smear or blacklist anything - only to list books that are commonly thought of as anti-Mormon, which is on-topic, worth mentioning, and has nothing to do with my own personal opinion. Feel free to object by saying that certain of the books listed are not typically considered anti-Mormon, but please don't accuse me of having an agenda that doesn't exist. uriah923^(talk) 17:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are including the books you think are anti-Mormon, and so you include your own criterion, and that would make it original research. A blatant no-no. Good faith has nothing to do with it, it is purely subjective at this point, or copied from Mormon POV sources with their religious agenda. If you can cite a respectable researcher who has made such a list, and his/her criterion, then that would be different. Anon166 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about research; this is about prevailing opinion. I know hundreds of Mormons and have read multiple articles on the subject. My contention is that most all of them would agree that these books are anti-Mormon. If you'd like, I could probably find multiple witnesses and sources of each. Of course, all of them would include their point of view - but that's what this article is about. This is an article about a label usually given by Mormons as an expression of their point of view. We, as editors, should be able to objectively summarize the prevailing point of view out there, whether we think it is objective or not. uriah923^(talk) 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. If Mormon apologists want people to discriminate against a book for whatever reason, then they will say it is anti-Mormon even though nobody has read the book. Citing opinion is citing an apologist position, and you should cite them by name. Citation is needed, and just because you have a list doesn't let you off the hook. Anon166 22:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's clear we don't agree on this. Let's see what other editors have to say. uriah923^(talk) 22:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's clear you don't mean what you say. Above, you wrote: Feel free to object by saying that certain of the books listed are not typically considered anti-Mormon, but please don't accuse me of having an agenda that doesn't exist. Then I deleted two book entries that did not demonize Mormonism at all in support of a bias, but simply argued for Smith or Spaulding authorship, and you reverted them it seems. They are not anti-Mormon by definition. I perused Brodie's book at the BYU bookstore no less. Anon166 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I said "object by saying," not "object by deleting without support." If you feel Brodie's book cannot be considered anti-Mormon, then just say so. That would give me the opportunity to present support, such as the following opinions representing how some (not necessarily me or you) consider Brodie's book to be anti-Mormon:

Flanders, Robert Bruce (1966) "Writing on the Mormon Past", Dialogue, 1 (3), 47-61. Quotation.
Nibley, The Myth Makers (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1961). Mentions Brodie's book in a general survey of anti-Mormon literature.
Included as part of an overview of anti-Mormon publications here.
The FARMS review of the book dubs it as anti-Mormon here.

Quite enough to warrant inclusion in the article, don't you think? If this is going to be a problem, though, we can include a note after the listing of Brodie's book referencing these. uriah923^(talk) 23:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is getting closer to the issue. We need a list of authors, or a system, that tables the books, since the guilt by association is obviously targetting widely respected scholarship. By the way, in case you are unaware, academically speaking, you are quoting Mormon apologetic sources here which claim Brodie as anti-Mormon, which is natural to their pro-Mormon POV. You have proven that this is officially a POV issue now and the section must have either a tag or an explanation as to which Mormon apologists have listed them as anti-Mormon. It should be easy to do, and if you don't feel up to it, then don't post it. It would be misleading to say they are "considered" anti-Mormon without tagging the bias as to who considers it, certainly not the non-readers. Anon166 00:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, as long as we have the same criteria for everything posted. uriah923^(talk) 02:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any other blacklists attempting to suppress scholarship by citing bogus academic sources who fallaciously label the researched material they can't refute as persecution of their beliefs. Anon166 15:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that they sell Fawn Brodie's book in the BYU Bookstore doesn't mean it isn't anti-Mormon. The major complaint that people had about that book was that they claimed it took rumors and presented them as facts. Non-Mormon critics supposedly gave it a good review, but when Brodie did her next biography (Thomas Jefferson?), they complained about the same kinds of problems. Anti-Mormon books don't have to demonize Mormonism. Remember, some Mormons think anything that doesn't promote the church is anti-mormon.I, personally, wouldn't consider her book anti-mormon, but I could see why others might. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, wouldn't consider her book anti-mormon, but I could see why others might. I personally don't believe you. Anon166 00:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

(Please do a copy and paste instead of a cut and paste next time.)

FYI, I don't mind anti-mormon literature. I find much of it amusing. My brother (who is an evangelical) used to send me stuff all the time. I finally helped him discover that you can't believe most of it, so I haven't gotten any recently. As a matter of fact, anti-mormon literature played a vital part in my converting from agnostic to Mormon. As for Brodie's book, I think it is more poor research / validation than actually anti-Mormon. The fact that she had the same kinds of problems in her next book indicates to me that it is just her style. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for cutting the quote accidentally. Anon166 02:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Others"?

What is the point of the text in the "Others" section? and why is it in a section called "Views of Anti-Mormonism/Others"? It seems to be a quote from the Book of Mormon, not from "Others", along with some weird statements about polygamy, racism, and fundamentalists. It doesn't seem to fit in well with the article as a whole at all, and certainly not in the section it's in. If somebody finds the material in that section important, can we integrate it into another section where it would more properly belong? If not, can we just get rid of the whole thing? --Dlugar 15:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree the section seems out of place and is generally useless. It brings up issues that need to be addressed, but I think they are done so elsewhere in the article. uriah923^(talk) 15:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The only views currently listed are comments from official church sources and views of various members. It seems to me that we should also have the views of non-Mormons, which is perhaps a better title for the section. I suggest that the "Rejection" section that follows by renamed and placed beneath "Views". Thoughts? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That could work, too, although I suggest leaving the name as is. I'll go ahead and do that. uriah923^(talk)

Edit war

The following diff pages show a looming edit war: [1], [2], [3]. Let's talk this out, Anon166. uriah923^(talk) 17:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the section you deleted is brief and speaks to the point and offers sorely needed balance to an article stuffed with apologetics (which misses the point that some apologetics exploits opposition. I didn't see your reason for deleting it. Do you have one? Anon166 18:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

To be blunt, I think the section is poorly written and off-topic. What does it tell us about anti-Mormonism that isn't available elsewhere in the article? It is a criticism of Mormonism, not facts concerning anti-Mormonism. It also contains claims that are not backed up with sources. I'll attempt to rewrite it so it presents only objective material. uriah923^(talk) 19:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the section to include only the fact-based material here. uriah923^(talk) 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Citing your need to review all edits is not a reason to delete them. If something is poorly written you rewite it. You are censoring the part where so-called anti-Mormonism is responsible for making Mormonism politically tolerable by civil standards, and basically making a fool out of people who whine about anti-polygamy and anti-racism being anti-Mormonism. I can hardly believe the gung ho editors here didn't see this coming, but I guess that I shouldn't be surprised it never crossed their mind. Apprarently this knowledge is now an inconvenient fact to the pre-set agenda here. If you disagree with it then just say so and we can make an entire section devoted to the balance of both views. You will find most Mormon scholars arguing in favor of the political pressure and the timely change, and it won't need to be established as a cause, merely a researched position. Anon166 22:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "timely" polygamy change debate because it's off-topic, not because of personal feelings on the matter. uriah923^(talk) 22:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic because it wasn't called anti-Mormonism? It was, and it qualifies as a proponent view of so-called anti-Mormonism that rejects the term. It would be the same as someone defending anti-Mormonism by saying it was also legitimate opposition to disagreeable social conditions proposed by Mormonism. It is advised on the NPOV tutorial page that Wikipedia be written from the proponent perspective. Anon166 22:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic because it was a theory that someone has about why the LDS church changed its stance on polygamy - not about anti-Mormonism. In any case, I've already rewritten the section and it seems others agree the portion still not included shouldn't be. uriah923^(talk) 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are extreme in your views of this, out of step with mainstream Mormon scholarship on this matter (who don't cite interlopers such as FARMS for their opinions, by the way). I wonder how many Mormon academic sources would half agree with you. Anon166 15:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, Anon166, this is the sort of behavior that gives Exmormons a bad name. The section was poorly-written and off-topic and didn't add balance to anything. You make some good points about the POV nature of the article in places, but this isn't one of them. --Dlugar 01:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dlugar, your sort of behavior gives Mormon apologists a bad name and I don't think good writing can be poor thinking. There is a major contradiction with this article that was more apparent in the original article. It assumes that the anti-Mormon label is often wrong, but then concludes otherwise. A section is required that offers balanced views of anti-Mormonism potentially changing Mormonism for the better, or mainstreaming it, from political pressure, which ironically made it seem normal, thus allowing articles like this to pretend that the persecution was invalid. Poorly written is a poor excuse for something that doesn't fit your slant agenda. It is either a fact or not that anti-polygamy and anti-racism were anti-Mormon and valid opposition, to be decided by the reader. Deny it or don't deny it. I note that your writing values are based on obfuscation or serving a preformed conclusion. Apologists tend to be stuck in the either/or fallacy that prevents them from seeing beyond us or them, black and white, in evidence by your label for me. Anon166 15:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon166, in case you haven't noticed by my edits, I am not a Mormon apologist. I find it amusing that you talk about black and white and either/or, and then label me a Mormon apologist. If you have quotes from neutral third-party sources that say that anti-Mormonism changed the Mormon Church's views on polygamy and racism, then feel free to create an "Other" section and put the quotes there. --Dlugar 15:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dlugar, I didn't assume you were a Mormon apologist until you alluded that I was a negative example of an Exmormon, imlying anti-Mormon, for simply disagreeing with apologist views of anti-Mormonism which in turn don't agree with mainstream Mormon historians. That type of assumption and published view of me equates to an apologist with B/W thinking. It's good you disavow the moniker, to your credit as a proud author. Anon166 15:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! Anon166, please do us all (including you) a favor. Take a break. Go for a walk. Listen to some good music. Read a good book. Once you feel a sense of calm returning, come on back and read the rest of this note.

Just because somebody questions and/or disagrees with what you write doesn't mean that they are out to get you, think you have an agenda, or anything else. You might have noticed that I added a "citation needed" note to a quote in the article that I'm pretty sure you wrote. I did that because it was a quote, but not referenced. It seems to me that if we include a quote, then we should probably reference it. If it really isn't a quote, but a paraphrase, then we should remove the quotation marks.

I'm guessing that Dlugar assumed you were an ex-mormon for the same reason I thought you were, and that was that your edit history started with some exmormon articles before you moved on to this page. From the content of your edits, I am pretty sure you are very familiar with the church, but you are not a current member of the LDS church. ;^) Thinking about "What would Sherlock Holmes do?", I came to the conclusion you were an ex-mormon. Perhaps I am wrong. Frankly, Scarlet, I don't care what you are. I am interested in creating a good article so that anyone who wants to learn about anti-mormonism can come here and get a fair and balanced view of all sides. And while I value your ability to perceive possible POV issues, the way you deal with them once found negates much of the positive influence you could have on this article. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill, remove the X-ray glasses. Thanks. Anon166 04:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Instead of name calling and attacking people's motives, how about being constructive? IMO, something could probably be included on this topic, it just needs to be worded and referenced properly:

"Some also refer to the reversed policies of plural marriage and racially discriminate priesthood within the LDS Church in an effort to show the potential positive effects of alleged anti-Mormon activities.(ref)"

How does that sound, Anon166? You'd need to find a suitable reference first, of course. uriah923^(talk) 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some sources falling under the rubric of "Anti-Mormonism as a normative influence" and of course, to make that title make immediate sense, it may be defined as a socially justifiable anti-Mormonism, ie, opposition by people who did not appreciate Mormon "barbarisms." All of these articles refer to changes and the political pressures leading to normative effects due to opposition characterized as anti-Mormon then and now.

Anon166 20:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I numbered the suggested references for ease of response:

This fits in well under Views of Latter-day Saints, in general. Concerning polygamy and blacks holding the priesthood, there is one mention of a personal email that fits - but it would still be under the LDS views heading. I'll stick something in there about it.
This has a little about the anti-Mormon government views of Oconner maybe being of benefit to the Saints by connecting them more with the rest of the nation. I didn't find anything concerning priesthood policy, and although it discussed the fact that reversing the plural marriage policy was required for statehood, it doesn't attempt to argue this as a positive thing for the Sants - merely as a step towards the continental nation we have today. I'll add this to the "Others" (implying historians) section.
This mentions facts (Utah had to promise no plural marriages to become a state), but doesn't make a good reference for the claim that some argue this to be good for the Saints.
Would you mind pointing to specific place where it claims the anti-Mormon activities ended up benefiting the Saints?
I failed to find anything here, either, concerning the eventual benefit of anti-Mormon activities for the Saints.

uriah923^(talk) 21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Uriah, you are crudely avoiding the fact that the articles are used as support for a specific statement relating to a critical point, ie, a cite for political pressure for whichever change mentioned. For example, number 5 contains a simple reference to dropping an oath under government pressure, ostensibly to avoid the suspicion of treason, in order to avoid government persecution. I'm slightly surprised you went looking for overall commentary in the quotes yet uncited. Normative and socially justifiable criticism could care less what a Mormon regards as a benefit, because it is their position of making a barbarism fit into their social milieu to become accepted from a values perspective. PS. I didn't expect you to write it, I don't think you understand the nature of the viewpoint. Anon166 21:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were going to be constructive? I ignored what was off-topic: a criticism of the LDS Church. I included in the article was was pertinent: information concerning viewpoints of anti-Mormonism in the sources listed. If you can find more of the latter, please list it. uriah923^(talk) 22:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You speak as though you alone get to define constructive, more evidence of bias. The paragraph is not yet written. The articles relate to what YOU refer to as anti-Mormonism, ie, government action, etc, not necessarily what they call it obviously. Perhaps you are beginning to realize what a fraud the title of this entry would be IF it insists that critics adopt the term for themselves, essentially a strawman piece. Seems like a contradition tag or a title-POV tag is warranted if that is insisted upon. Anon166 22:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate citation

I removed this citation from the introduction:

""Are You an Anti-Mormon?". AntiMormon.KeepRight.net. Retrieved 2006-06-01."

I couldn't find information in the article supporting the claim that "Some Mormons consider anyone critical or biased against Mormonism to be anti-Mormon," or that it represented an example of "those who consider anyone biased against Mormonism as anti-Mormon," although it did say, "You might be a considered an anti-Mormon if your bias is based on an antecendant assumption that Mormonism is a fraud." Definitely not the same thing. uriah923^(talk) 18:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You won't necessarily find the "common" definition of anti-Mormon from those who are pretending to scholarship, or from apologists who legalistically use polemics to argue for and flatter their side. For the "common" definition, you need to go to common Mormon sources where at least two Mormons agree to define it that way. http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=4805&st=81 Anon166 20:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The referenced conversation states:

The prefix anti- simply means "against," while Mormon refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is, of course, simply false to say that someone is anti-Mormon simply by virtue of believing something else; to be an anti-Mormon, they must be actively engaged in opposing. Anti-Mormonism is nothing more or less than opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thus, a person may be intelligent, articulate, urbane, honest, degree qualified from accredited institutions, and employing reasoned, careful arguments; but if those arguments are in opposition to the truth claims and institutional aims of the Church of Jesus Christ, then they are anti-Mormon arguments; and if the person spends a significant amount of time actively opposing the Church, whether by making such arguments or otherwise, then that person is an anti-Mormon."opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

The introduction segment needing a reference states, "Some Mormons consider anyone critical or biased against Mormonism to be anti-Mormon." These don't match up. We need to either reword the introduction to reflect the expressed viewpoint (which I think is accurate), or find multiple sources to show the existing statement is more accurate. uriah923^(talk) 22:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would reword the introduction to include any opposition in argument or otherwise, as they state. Anon166 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like somebody updated the intro, but used an older version. I had added a ref for the end of the last sentence (only malicious intent for anti-mormon). I added my reference back in. The sentence in the middle about exmormons doesn't seem to fit. The following sentence outlines the two extremes of the definition by LDS members, and I'm not sure why exmormons would be singled out, since that could apply to many groups. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved both references to the body of the article. The info in the intro can be a summary and I think it is implied that the references from the body apply in support. I also reworded the definition to be according to the post on the FAIR message boards, as I feel it is an accurate reflection of the feelings of most Mormons. I agree the middle sentence seems out of place. Reword suggestions, or just remove it? uriah923^(talk) 03:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Middle sentence is topic related to criticism, while the last sentence is person related to the opponent. Casual criticism is rarely argumentation anyway. I would add that one refers to Mormons and the other to Mormonism, argumentation being appropriate to the belief, while more superficial criticism contrasts as a sentiment towards the believers. Anon166 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported intro claim

The link Anon166 provided earlier defines an anti-Mormon as one who "spends a significant amount of time actively opposing the Church, whether by making [anti-Mormon] arguments or therwise." It defines an anti-Mormon argument as being "in opposition to the truth claims and institutional aims of the Church of Jesus Christ." This does not support the statement presently in the introduction that "Some Mormons consider anyone who argues in opposition to Mormonism to be anti-Mormon," which leaves the claim unsupported. I added a fact tag instead of removing it to avoid an edit war, but it needs to either be supported or removed. uriah923^(talk) 04:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the entire list of pages preceding it. Argumentation is the common thread. Some are listed as definitive, others not specified. Sentiment cited also includes argumentation, but did not define the time needed. Significant amount of time is not only subjective to the author, but undefined, so an objective reference to time itself it is out of the question. Besides, a cite only needs to support a claim, not report a claim. I would add that you are denying the cited author's more valid point in favor of his least valid claim. Anon166 04:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Let's see what others think. uriah923^(talk) 14:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Without any time qualifier, you are definitely casting a much broader net, which results in a term that everyone fits within. Anyone making any type of critical comment is then made anti-Mormon. Using that definition I suspect a great number of active Mormons could be classified as anti-Mormon, which does not make sense. Ed Decker would more appropriately be defined as anti-Mormon, whereas Brother Jones isn't. Ed Decker put out movies, tapes, brochures, books, etc. Brother Jones just says he thinks wearing white shirts to church was too cult-like. Argumentation is always present, the difference is that one spends a great deal of time doing it and the other just when he is putting on white shirt in his home. Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, argumentation refers an argument, not a subjective criticism. The time qualifier, as you put it, is non-existent, so referring to one to be "significant amount" is absurd. It obviously refers to a level of skill as a euphemism, which they are too embarrassed to admit there are levels of skill. Additionally, I'm not sure how anyone one can go from citing a source that represents a group sentiment very well, to cherry picking a non-fact, calling it the definitive qualifier, and then citing the source as authoritative. This is the first thing someone will notice when they review this article for bias. I suggest someone competent digest all the remarks on the former link, since it is a good one, and find the ONE word that applies to the most sentiments. Anon166 15:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would add that that the description is so perfectly sound as it is, that there is no way it can last in an environment that is trying to convey the idea that Mormon critics are irrational. Anon166 15:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the definitive word as being "oppose," not "argue." Leaving it at "argue" ignores the intention, meaning that arguments having the Church's success as their goal (decidedly pro-Mormon) would be included. uriah923^(talk) 16:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That would work, I say leave the link for future proofing, and would add that oppose is verb here, argument to me is the better noun, not time.Anon166 16:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The claim that "Some Mormons consider anyone who argues in opposition to Mormonism to be anti-Mormon," came from my initial rewrite of the article, with this link as the source. That reference has since been removed, my guess is because of the quality of the reference, but honestly I don't see a Fair Boards link as being any higher quality.

However, the claim is also made in the "Correspondence between James White and Dr. Louis Midgley" link; search for the text:

Now before getting up in arms over the label "anti-Mormon," I suggest that you consult the entry under "anti" in a dictionary. This prefix simply means "against" or "opposed to." If you are not against or opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ, to the faith of Latter-day Saints, to the Book of Mormon, to the prophetic truth claims of Joseph Smith, then have I entirely misunderstood you.

In any case, with regards to the broader net, there are some Mormons who do not hesitate to label anything critical of the Church "anti-Mormonism", and would happily agree that while Brother Jones isn't an anti-Mormon, his statement about white shirts is. And if Brother Jones makes a lot of such statements, maybe he's really an anti-Mormon too. New Order Mormons get a lot of this sort of reaction--they are typically active members of the Church, but usually for family reasons only and do not believe some/many of the foundational claims of the Church. And they certainly get labeled anti-Mormon by some.

(Note for Anon166 ... I'm not saying they should be labeled anti-Mormon any more than Ed Decker ought to be labeled anti-Mormon. I'm just saying that there are certainly Mormons who think this way, and because of that I think it ought to be part of the article.) --Dlugar 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I do get a lot of raised eyebrows, but I have never been called anti-Mormon by fellow LDS. I particularly enjoy making irreverent comments about the leadership in Salt Lake; that is where I actually get the most raised eyebrows. However, the difference is I am very active in the church, appreciate my testimony, and enjoy serving. Sometimes the segregations you guys attempt to make simply don't apply to real people. All of these new groups that attempt to define people by their degree of committment or lack thereof, IMO, are silly. People are seldom so easily categorized and not everyone needs to be associated with a named group to feel validated. That is my soapbox. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify here, I personally don't feel that everyone needs to be categorized, so I hope that you're not including me in the "you guys" who are attempting to make segregations. I'm sure you're a great guy, but I'm also sure that there are Mormons out there who would call your irreverent comments "anti-Mormon" in nature, and most likely call you to repentance. (Perhaps you've already met some of that type.) In an ideal world, there wouldn't be any Wikipedia articles that were labels or categorizations (and maybe that's the source of Anon166's continual opposition), but this isn't an ideal world, and there are people who call everything from Decker to the Tanners to disrespectful comments about the Lord's anointed "anti-Mormon." And so all the above, I think, belong in this article--along with Decker's, Tanners', and Bro. Jones' statements about why they think what they do isn't anti-Mormon in nature. --Dlugar 05:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dlugar, and that the linked b-boards is THE authoritative source in regards/support of the claim being made. It refers to SOME Mormons as a common view. The claim is, and should be that some Mormons think anyone who "argues in opposition" is anti-Mormon, because it covers the gamut of sentiments without trying to make up a fake criterion that raises more questions than it answers. The source is therefore supportive and dovetails the "argument" claim. Nobody can really dispute that part, UNLESS, we are looking for something less to say. Either way, I think that citing the single author as authoritative (not representative), is missing the point, and missing it badly. Anon166 16:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I still have yet to find support for the argument claim in any of the sources that have been listed. This one says, "You might be a considered an anti-Mormon if your bias is based on an antecendant assumption that Mormonism is a fraud," which qualifies the argument. This one defines an anti-Mormon as being "against or opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ, to the faith of Latter-day Saints, to the Book of Mormon, to the prophetic truth claims of Joseph Smith," which says nothing of argument. This one, as I said earlier, defines an anti-Mormon as one who "spends a significant amount of time actively opposing the Church, whether by making [anti-Mormon] arguments or otherwise," which again qualifies the argument.

All of these support the idea that it takes much more than just an argument to be anti-Mormon; it takes an argument with intentions opposed to the goals of the Church. I propose changing the intro statement to read: "Some Mormons consider anyone acting in opposition to the goals of Mormonism to be anti-Mormon". This is in accordance with all sources. uriah923^(talk) 16:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that being "against" something either implies leaning against or argument against. Criticism is never against unless specified, because it may be criticism of people not being Mormon enough, which does oppose Mormon claims to validity. There is no other general interpretation of "against" that I know of besides legal or violence. If someone has a beer or only pays tithing on net income, then they are acting in opposition to the goals of Mormonism, therefore anti-Mormon. Anon166 18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking of having goals against Mormonism, not doing something that another considers to be acting in opposition to the goals of Mormonism. If that's not clear, however, we can insert "intentionally" into the phrase: "Some Mormons consider anyone intentionally acting in opposition to the goals of Mormonism to be anti-Mormon". uriah923^(talk) 19:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not just: "Some Mormons consider anyone against or opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be anti-Mormon"? It's pretty much a direct quote of several of the sources. --Dlugar 05:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's accurate (and constructive). uriah923^(talk) 05:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Should there be a reference that points to a few of the quotes mentioned above? That would allow the reader to better understand the scope of opinions and draw their own conclusions. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll make the change and include a reference citing the links above. uriah923^(talk) 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know what is the point of this subject in wikipédia? Is it a site to speak about mormonism from a more critical and objectiv stanfpoint than on the topic call "Mormonism", OR IS IT JUST ANOTHER THEORETICALLY POLITICALLY CORRECT SIDE TO LOOKS LIKE IF THE BALANCE IS WELL BALANCED ON ALL SIDES" when in fact it isn't at all and people here seems mor focused on defining the well defined -by mormons, of course - word of anti mormonism , than to take care of the real problem that occur in this encyclopédie when being absolutly uncritical toward a sect, as the mormon sect is, and even afraid to utter a falslihood of a critic towards it. The mormon church is a pyramidal source and bunch of lies, unhabited by well washed and brain washed youngster, and well slited older, repeating the same in the old oh same chorus, and going nowhere from birth to death. Smiling so hypocritically as ever possible for human to be, and lying as they were told to ly and misunderstanding all as they were educated to, and hindering themselves and their progenitures to ever think a thought on their own, totaly inable to reflect deeply on the eventual truth or falsewood of their believes. Mormonism, one more reason to forbid all kind of religions from the face of the earth. Renegate it all to a museum, and I am being nice. Chew that for a nigth or two, no monkey on wiki are writing a line about Darwin theory, so I dont see why a mormon should have the right to write it all about and against mormonism.

kind regards,

sophie 213.237.21.242 20:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Now here's something we can all agree is anti-Mormon. :) uriah923^(talk) 23:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know ... most of the anti-Mormon stuff I've read at least tries to make a modicum of sense. Can you really put "The mormon church is a pyramidal source and a bunch of lies, unhabited by well washed and brain washed youngster, and well slited older" in the same category as the rest of the stuff on this page? Hehe. --Dlugar 01:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem cites

Nibley's mindreading ad hominem quote condemning the speaking of one's conscience is in the wrong section. The quote attributed to Smith which demonizes apostates seems to be in error, and is not an official view either. It is taken from The Evening and Morning Star edited by Cowdery and F.G.Williams, probably lifted from a Neal Maxwell speech as a secondary source. I would be interested to know if Smith actually wrote it because the source lists "we" as author pronoun and is unsigned. http://www.centerplace.org/history/ems/v2n19.htm Anon166 23:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Where do you want to move Nibley's quote? To Views of Latter-day Saints? I guess I'd be OK with that. Joseph Smith's quote is said to be from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Although you've found the text elsewhere online, you'd have to actually look in a copy of the book to prove it's invalid. uriah923^(talk) 04:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, the text it is cited from includes many other authors. Anon166 04:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't advocate Nibley's quote at all. It is libelous and stupid, but others here probably fell asleep as children listening to it on tape, they are that devoted, so they are trying to dress it up as valid. Speaking of Nibley, he probably taught, by example, all of the other would-be apologists on how to argue using bogus footnotes for lack of a proper presentation. As a result, apologists today write stilted and pompous pieces that begin with the footnotes, citing them as authority when they should be representative, and then taking something ordinary and common sense, and leaving it out for lack of a citation in order to believe it. It is a strange phenomenon, but Nibley should be credited with it more widely beyond the Sunstone and Dialogue crowd. I think that poor writing is pretentious writing, and it doesn't surprise when those authors admit they don't care for its validity so long as they were fooled by it. Anon166 18:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The quote, in the book, is officially titled: "Excerpts from an Epistle of the Elders of the Church in Kirtland to Their Brethren Abroad" (assuming a faithful internet rendition). Nowhere does it imply Joseph Smith wrote it, and I would add that it may not matter to Mormons who wrote anything in Mormonism, but it does to Wikipedia and unsuspecting readers when people believe it represents Mormonism's founder. Included in the the JFS book are assorted testimonies of witnesses and scriptures, and things written by Smith and Cowdery, etc. It does not mean Smith wrote it, nor does it mean J.Smith wrote it if J.F.Smith believed he did by copying from a later tract. This requires an expert to say who did write it, but the quote is NOT attributed to Smith in the book and was first published in the newspaper account under Cowdery's and Williams collaboration. http://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/Teachings/T2.html Anon166 18:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Bogus citations found in notes section?

Wayne Cowdery's book is professionally critiqued by the FARMS review, cited here listing it as anti-Mormon, but I couldn't find a search word to "anti-Mormon" concerning the book itself--which would be the only reason to cite this source, not because it disagrees with it. Another book cited which lists Cowdery's latest book as anti-Mormon is dated in the 1980's well before publication. Even if one argues that Cowdery is Satan and that it doesn't matter, there were other authors involved. Yet another website listing the book as anti-Mormon is anonymous and has no criterion listed, and is completely uncitable as an authority source. In fairness, this book must be deleted from the list or else a factual tag is warranted. Anon166 02:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Bringhurst review in FARMS, of Brodie's book, likewise fails to make any assertion that it is anti-Mormon, apparently, even suggesting otherwise at times. I'm getting concerned that an attempt is being made to malign solid and respected research by citing anti-intellectual websites, and then tossing in some cites for good measure. Anon166 02:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

List the sources here individually numbered and we can discuss them. uriah923^(talk) 04:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sure I have probably heard people refer to Brodie's book as anti-Mormon, but the only real critique is that she was polemic; she ignored factual research that she knew existed, but left them out becuase it conflicted with her thesis. Though there is a caveat, her work is still important. This area would be good for Visor to comment; he has far more experience with this than me. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like you care if your sources are bogus or not. Anon166 23:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Normative influence

Concerning this edit: I'm OK with the heading change and mentioning the idea that some people think anti-Mormonism is responsible for changes in church doctrine, but I don't think "Both critics and LDS scholars" fits. Let's look at each of the references by topic:

Polygamy - The reference does make the claim that political pressure led to the change. The source would be considered anti-Mormon material
Priesthood/Race - The source is ambiguous (an entire book). We at least need a page number to be able to check if it validates the claim.
Violence - First, the source is about Mormon Fundamentalism, not Mormonism in general. Second, the wording "temple covenants" has a whole different meaning in the LDS faith and is very misleading. Third, where in this reference does it claim that anti-Mormonism was a normative influence?

So, it looks like we need an LDS scholar source on #1, a page number with appropriate info and a critic source on #2, and a complete re-do or deletion on #3. uriah923^(talk) 04:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Normative is the category of norms, which icludes social norms. Influence is probably not mentioned either as such, but that is the description of the theme. That's probably because a title generalizes the theme, delineated by descriptions, which the citations support, not in reverse order. Similarly, your cite of Nibley and "Smith" don't contain anti-Mormon, yet you cited them as such. Your special pleading is noted. Anon166 05:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the manifesto as a reference for "LDS scholars" believing that "past government pressure towards Mormonism as politically responsible for overturning the doctrines of polygamy"? It seems to me like that stance is doctrinal, in fact. (I do agree that the others need [better] sources.) --Dlugar 18:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's reasonable to include the Manifesto, but I wouldn't categorize it as an LDS scholar source. It seems to relate more to the concept in church doctrine that "We believe in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law." It seems to me that concept should be included. Something along the lines of,

"Past government pressure towards Mormonism seems to be responsible for overturning the LDS doctrine of plural marriage, as indicated by Wilford Woodruff in Official Declaration 1: 'Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.'"

I think this is accurate and supported by valid references, but it seems like it should be included in the Official views section. For something to go into the Normative views section, we need sources that have this as the main topic. uriah923^(talk) 18:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any scholar in the world treats it as a coincidence, excluding perhaps those whose education began and ended in Sunday School. I must be the only one here versed in Mormon history. The point to having critics (whether anti- or fundamentalist) and LDS scholars agree on government pressure, is being generous to Mormon persecution, else the leadership reversed itself on whim and is apostate itself. Every textbook in Utah has the same government pressure story on polygamy. http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/p/POLYGAMY.html Anon166 23:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, Anon166, can we ditch the vitriol? You've made some good contributions but I'm getting a bit wearied by your antagonistic approach. Who on earth said that the connection between government influence and the polygamy change was "coincidence"?! Both Uriah923 and I both agree that the connection is "accurate and supported by valid references". Uriah923's only quibble was that he thought it should be noted that the connection was Official! And here you come waltzing in with statements like, "I must be the only one here versed in Mormon history"?! Goodness gracious. At least save your vitriol for places where we actually disagree with you. --Dlugar 03:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Vitriol? I think you are projecting something onto me. I see most here in various degrees of paranoia. If you could only appreciate how seriously you take yourselves you would find it anything but vitriolic. Anon166 06:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone brings up specific issues with my suggested wording and suggests an exact replacement, I'm going to assume it's good to go. uriah923^(talk) 18:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How does one demand a replacement to an error unless it is willful and serving another purpose other than truth? Anon166 18:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My point is that if you have an issue, let's hear exactly what it is and exactly how the wording should be changed. Again, that's constructive. uriah923^(talk) 21:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you point out the parts you have verified and the parts you arbitrarily added, and we can start there to save time. Anon166 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing; 100% of my above statement (beginning with "Past government pressure") is verified. uriah923^(talk) 02:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rejection of the term tweaks

This edit I reverted for a number of reasons.

Grant Palmer was disfellowshipped, making his book less approachable by most members. Why remove him from the list? He's a perfect example of this.
I think explicitly saying "members who wish to enter LDS temples" is unnecessary. First, it requires a relatively in-depth knowledge of Mormon doctrine on the part of the reader to understand what "wishing to enter LDS temples" means. It's not just a desire or a wish, it's an integral part of being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Secondly, temple recommend interviews are not just conducted when a member wishes to enter an LDS temple--even when a person lives too far from a temple to attend, they are encouraged to have a temple recommend interview regularly anyway. Finally, the temple recommend questions may be asked on other occasions depending on your ecclesiastical leaders, for example when being called to certain positions or being ordained to the priesthood. I don't think this article is the place to educate the reader about all these nuances, hence I feel that "Ecclesiastical leaders regularly interview church members" is a reasonable description of what takes place that is understandable by non-Mormons.

Comments? --Dlugar 18:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Grant Palmer. Point 2 seems to be reasonable, for now. uriah923^(talk) 18:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm the person who did the edit. I don't have time to follow all the discussions on the talk page, so I've been spot checking the talk page and reading the entire article every so often. Most of my changes were typos, unlike this particular edit.

I removed Grant Palmer from the second list since he was already listed earlier in the paragraph under ex-mormon. It seemed to me that he should be listed as either ex-mormons or current members, but not both. He is both, but why use the same person in both lists?

The reason for mentioning temple interviews is that the current text implies that leaders regularly interview all members and ask that question. Actually, only the more active members are interviewed, and only if they ask to be interviewed. I'm not attached to my wording, but think that we should make it clear that the interviews are voluntary and only to those who are active members. In its current state, the article is misleading. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 22:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, Bill--I don't expect you to follow all the talk page discussions, but I figured you'd notice your edit was reverted and make your way here eventually. :-) Glad we can get some dialogue going.

With regards to point 1, Palmer isn't an ex-mormon; he's an active member of the Church (or at least he was). I agree that that whole paragraph is rather confusingly written at the moment. Probably the bit about ex-mormons being labeled anti-mormon should be separated out of that section, because it's primarily meant to be about active members such as Palmer or Todd Compton writing negatively about the Church (or Church history), being labeled as anti-mormon, and then getting disfellowshipped or excommunicated, making members less likely to approach their works.

As far as the second point goes, I don't see the separation of "active members" from "non-active members" to be a useful one with regards to this section. First of all, the previous sentence already mentioned "active members" so I think it's clear from context which group it's talking about. Secondly, all members of the Church are expected and encouraged to be "active members", so I don't see it as a useful distinction here. Furthermore, I think it's a bit misleading to say that members are interviewed only if they ask to be interviewed. If an active member does not currently have a temple recommend, they are frequently contacted by the bishop and asked or invited to come in for an interview. At other times (e.g. priesthood ordinations, callings) the bishop may also initiate the interview and ask similar questions. In addition, I think in most any ward or branch, if an active member is known to "support, affiliate with, or agree with" any anti-Mormon group, that person will likely be subject to disciplinary action of some sort, whether that person asks for it or not. That's the sentiment I'm trying to get across with this paragraph. Does that make sense at all? --Dlugar 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bill. To imply that church leaders hound each member for interviews is inaccurate. Those who want to enter the temple, receive a calling or ordination or do other things that require a certain level of worthiness are interviewed to ascertain such. Dlugar, you're correct that all members of the church are expected to be active, but so are all members of the world population, really.

To get back to the point, though, this sentence is included to show that Church members are expected not to be involved in anti-Mormon activities if they wish to receive a temple recommend. I think it should center on that and not try to make a larger point. A link to the section on Requirements for entering LDS temples in this article, would be good. uriah923^(talk) 18:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that:

members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who "support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church" can be subject to disciplinary action (and this may include more than just not being able to enter the temple).

Do both of you think this is an accurate statement?

I'm not trying to imply that church leaders hound each member for interviews. (Depending on your leadership, this may in fact be the case :) but it's orthogonal to the point I'm trying to make.) I just don't want the statement to get too watered down. If both of you agree that the above statement is accurate, we can work from there; if not, we can figure where exactly we differ. --Dlugar 02:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that statement, but I'd say it like this: "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who "support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church" may be subject to disciplinary action including but not limited to not being able to enter LDS temples." uriah923^(talk) 02:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the extra addendum "including but not limited to ..." adds to the discussion--I think the only thing pertinent to a section called "Rejection of the term" is that there's a possibility of disciplinary action. At any rate, the whole paragraph, as I mentioned earlier, needs a rewrite, so when I get some time today or tomorrow I'll try rewriting it and see what you guys think. Sound good? --Dlugar 15:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I included that phrase because it sounded more professional than "can be subject to disciplinary action (and this may include more than just not being able to enter the temple)." I agree that just stating "can be subject to disciplinary action" would suffice. A rewrite is fine, just be sure to concentrate on views of anti-Mormonism, not views of Mormonism. uriah923^(talk) 16:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with either version. Perhaps something like "may be subjected to disciplinary actions such as being released from certain leadership positions, being refused entry into the temple, disfellowshipment, or possibly excommunication." ? That gives the reader an idea of the range of possible actions. There might be Bishoprics in Utah that hound people for temple recommend interviews, but I've been Exec Sec for half a dozen Bishops and have never seen that in the Philly area. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a real difference between Utah Mormon culture and Mormon culture elsewhere in the US. I think Utah suffers from the same problems when any relgion dominates an area such as Catholicism in France or Western Europe in general. My experience with Bishopric's in the South and in the Northwest is they don't go out of their way to discipline people. Inividual memebers have to become flagrantly, aggressively hostile to the church before discipline of any type is brought up. Releasing people from callings is also more complex. If someone is going to start teaching false doctrine, there will be other issues that develope. First, why would someone continue to attend a church with which they disagree. A gospel doctrine teacher is not going to be the calling they would have. However, it would not be surprising to find them teaching primary children. I would think this has to be soft-peddled more than anything. In the general church body we seldom see witch hunts. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

External links (1)

I replaced this link. I agree that it displays a POV, but I think that's OK on this article. It would be good to have external links from all perspectives on anti-Mormonism. uriah923^(talk) 14:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong quote from Joseph Smith, and bogus cite of Wayne Cowdery's book

I removed them because they are unverifiable or verifiably wrong. Also moved Nibley's quote to LDS views where it obviously belongs. Wasn't logged in for the edit, but it was me. Anon166 19:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I put the JS quote back; as I said before, it has a valid reference that is verifiable. Unless you look in an actual copy of the book and see that it doesn't attribute the quote as listed, it should stay. I agree with the Nibley quote move. I'm confused by the citation removal; am I missing something here? mixing up Wayne Cowderys and books called "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon"? uriah923^(talk) 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The quote, in the book, is officially attributed to: "Excerpts from an Epistle of the Elders of the Church in Kirtland to Their Brethren Abroad" This is listed online on sites that quote directly from the source. In speeches, it is erroneously listed as a Smith quote. The source of the quote is from The Morning and the Evening Star and edited by Cowdery and Williams, unattributed to Smith, and assumed to be from Cowdery and Williams, attested by their author pronoun throughout the text ("we..."). This is why Wikipedia discourages secondary quotes, to discourage people from using a bogus one to supersede the primary quote, as you are doing. W. Cowdery's book was published in 2005, your cite was much earlier. Anon166 20:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I would add that the burden is on you to provide the primary source anyway. Anon166 20:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence introducing the quote and added an explanatory note in the reference. I think this takes care of any issues. Concerning the Cowdery thing, I must have mixed up my Wayne Cowderys. uriah923^(talk) 21:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Nibley Quote

Can somebody verify that the Nibley quote is correct? It doesn't sound like it is correct. I can't imagine him using "usually become sometimes ...". Also, I haven't read this one, but I have read several sarcastic articles by Nibley. Is this one of them? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct as in accurate? Don't know for sure, but I think it is. He talked that way all the time. He would routinely go off against other respected academics who didn't take him seriously because he was posing as an Egyptologist, which he was not. He was not good at much except combative Mormon apologetics, and I don't mean his footnotes in other languages from books where only a few copies existed. Look how his entire quote can be reversed to make a perfect projection of the criticism and judge his genius for yourself:

"Apologists usually become sometimes feverishly active, determined to prove to the world and themselves that it is not a fraud after all. What is that to them? Apparently it is everything—it will not let them alone. At the other end of the scale are those who have nothing to prove and instead retain a sentimental affection for the Church—they just believe in the gospel. I know quite a few of them. But how many of them can leave it alone? It haunts them all the days of their life. No one who has never had a testimony ever forgets or denies that he doesn't have it—that it was something that really happened to him. Even for such people who have it, a testimony cannot be reduced to a delusion." Anon166 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've noticed that kind of action by many converts, including those who recently joined or left a religion. I still don't think that quote is accurate. Perhaps it is another POV plot by the exmormons? ;^) (that's a joke, anon166) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The quote sounds familiar, but googling the phrase leads me to believe that it is definitely inaccurate. --Dlugar 03:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That is interesting. An original quote may have found its way into Wikipedia. Anon166 04:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how to decipher the footnote to Nibley's "apostate" quote (#40). Is the "6" one of his own famous footnotes? I don't think that's how it should be listed, in quotes that is. I'm confused on Norton's contribution as well. Maybe someone with the collected works can confirm it because people will cite it on other pages for years to come. Anon166 15:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the way the template renders the chapter number. uriah923^(talk) 16:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, turns out I was wrong about the quote being inaccurate. I pulled out my copy of Approaching Zion and sure enough, it's there, right on page 155, "usually become sometimes" and all. A few words are italicized in the original--I'll make that change--but other than that the quote is accurate. --Dlugar 03:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For Uriah

Having pretentious grammar tacked onto a redundant phrase (to the word Exmormon) is a laughing matter to me. My first instinct was to cut the sentence in half, but then I realized that some people would think their message had been shortened. Anon166 04:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/prepositions1.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by anon166 (talk • contribs).

I've heard you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition, but that is one rule up with which I will not put. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Lindsay

What happened to the Jeff Lindsay article? It was there when I added that "See Also" link a while ago, but it now appears to have been deleted. If you search for "Jeff Lindsay", an entry is found, but points to an empty page: "Relevance: 100.0% - 3.5 kB (524 words) - 20:02, 20 June 2006" It looks like it was deleted very recently. The Grant Palmer article is still there, however. Conspiracy theories, anyone? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted as a "vanity site" as per the rules, after a vote. What does Lindsay have to do with Grant Palmer? Anon166 22:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only person that didn't know about the vote? I'm surprised that nobody mentioned it on this talk page, since this article references him and contains a link to the now deleted page. (Only the "See Also" entry was deleted.) How does one nominate a page as a "vanity site"? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't vote myself. I think Lindsay is a joke, so I'm torn between suppressing his disinformation and fundamentalist self-promotion and letting it speak for the state of Mormon apologetics. Anon166 23:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There were only four votes; three for delete. I copied the voting and comments to the Lindsay discussion page. This was not an article I used and I never edited, but it does seem odd that it only took two days to get rid of an article by people who also never edited the article. When you Google Jeff Lindsay, Mormon you get 180,000 hits; it is not like he is unknown. The moral; you snooze, you lose. I suppose there is a way to bring it back, but I do not know the process off the top of my head. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The best thing is to create a good 5-10 paragraph article in a new sandbox (userspace) (with cites) - move the sandbox to the page that was deleted before (that way the history is preserved and in compliance with the GFDL) - then when someone lists it for deletion - or even in a preemption on the talk page - explain that it is a new article, acknowledge the prior debate on deletion and make it clear it is not a recreation but a new article on a public figure, etc. Trödel 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have requested that the deletion be overturned. The article is somewhat of a stub, but IMHO not a vanity page. You can voice your opinion here. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 02:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Doctrinal Differences

I'm reverting this edit by Amor'e. Similar edits have been made in the past to "tone down" the section, but I believe that they represent actual Mormon beliefs. I figured placing discussion here would help for future edits.

Do Mormons believe that the president of the Church has authority to change existing doctrine?
Do Mormons believe that God was once a man like us?

Comments? If either of the above statements seem questionable to others, I'll work on finding some cites. --Dlugar 06:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Added two refs for the "change existing doctrine" bullet point. They're just raw links, so if someone feels like formatting them properly I'd be much obliged. --Dlugar 07:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The solution to this is to verify the information by finding sources for this claim, summarizing the information, providing the cite and then other wikipedians can read the source material and contribute --Trödel 07:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find a range of beliefs within Mormonism regarding these two issues. Can a prophet change doctrine? It is possible, but it is not a question LDS think about. It is a foreign concept. Does a prophet receive revelation to guide the church today? LDS would say yes emphatically. Is it possible to change doctrine? Yes. However, I think you need to be very careful with teminology. Was it doctrine that Blacks could not hold the Priesthood? No, it was not doctrine, but rather policy. At the time of Joseph there were blacks that held the priesthood. Later it became formal policy. The Adam-God theory was mentioned by Brigham, but was it "doctrine"? No. Brigham mentioned it on several occaisions and it appears to have entered theology, but was rejected.

Second question regarding God being as man. We look at Lorenzo Snow's statement and the King Follet funeral sermon by Joseph and one might think so. However, we look at numerous scriptures and one might just as comfortably say no. Were they teaching the concept of eternal progression; i.e. that our Father in Heaven has created the possibility for us to become like Him? My hand would go up to support that. However, I have never been comfortable with the statement that he was a man, but it is said and taught by many people.

Interestingly, when we speak of these things we are speaking of mysteries. They are not part of scripture and are not doctrine, but are part of theology. I liken it to conversations about angels or Saints within Catholicism. At times it is fun to speculate, but at the end of the day seldom does the conversation bring us closer to the Holy Spirit.

Anti-Mormon literature specializes in sensationalizing the beliefs of Mormonism...Satan is the brother of Christ, God was once a man, etc. Not one of these concepts or beliefs brings one person to salvation. The problem is never once do they ever talk about why LDS believe some of these things. One might diagree with their interpretation of scripture, but that is the very best you can do; state you disagree with the interpretation.

Beliefs presented in context seldom come across as sensationalism, but take them out of context and we could all have a field day. For example, Christains are cannibals and they teach their children to eat the flesh and drink the blood of their God...weekly. Christians teach that all you have to do is walk down the aisle and accept that their God was murdered by Jews and thats it; they are saved. They don't have to do anything else. Both of these teachings are true statements of Christianity, but when taken out of context and sensationalized it sounds sort of odd doesn't it? There is a marked difference between criticism and anti-Mormonism and for that reason anti-Mormonism causes such a strong reaction. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I just want to second this comment - as the things that are claimed to be "doctrine" by others are often not considered doctrine by Mormons - as more elequently stated above. --Trödel 07:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I third the comment. Well said. uriah923^(talk) 20:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a couple more changes. The "so-and-so claims Mormons believe X" I think is rather wordy. I think it could be better as either (a) some Mormons believe X, or (b) Mormons believe X [with reference to actual Mormon doctrine]. I've changed the "multi-tiered paradise" to the style of (b), and the "God was once a man" to the style of (a). Does that sit well with everybody? --Dlugar 06:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition of doctrine

To me the statement re changing existing doctrine depends on your definition of doctrine. What is the "doctrine" of the church? What is the difference between a revelation and a doctrine? etc. As the article on doctrine discusses - the use of the word varies greatly. When used, by myself and Mormons I know, in common speech (i.e. sermons at church and common conversation), the context of the use indicates to me that most Mormons use the word to mean core religious principles. Thus the resistance from Mormons that the prophet can change existing doctrine - the prophet can't change the doctrine that Christ is the Son of God, the doctrine of the atonement, the doctrine of repentence, the doctrine of baptism, etc. However, Mormons do believe that revelation continues to this day, thus changes can occur - even to things that seem to be core to outsiders. For example, Mormonism was for a long time defined as "that religion that allows you to have more than one wife." Thus the active practice of polygamous relationships were seen as core by some, however, polygamy was always limited, the doctrine still exists, but its practice is not permitted at this time. So what changed - the doctrine or the behaviour? - thx for the links by the way. --Trödel 07:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "doctrine" is a poor choice of words. "Receive ongoing revelation" doesn't convey to the average reader that the president of the Church can change things like the temple ceremony, whether polygamy is practiced, whether polygamy is essential for salvation, whether blacks will ever receive the priesthood, things like that. McConkie called stuff like this "doctrine" (or at least gave the title to a book containing stuff like this), but there are a great many Mormons who disagree that such things should be labeled "doctrine". Is there any way of phrasing it such that it conveys to the average reader that, as Trödel states, "things that seem to be core to outsiders" can change, without stating it in such a way that Mormons would disagree? I don't think the "clarify doctrine" thing really how significant the changes can be. I mean, the whole point of this section is to show how mainstream Christians consider Mormonism to be so different as to be non-Christian. Most Christians wouldn't have a problem with religious leaders "clarifying doctrine" or "changing practices", but they would have a problem with their religious leaders making such large changes to core practices. --Dlugar 06:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just read Storm Rider's long section above, and how it relates to this point here. I think my main question is: what do you call things like "blacks cannot hold the priesthood" or "Adam-God theory" or "polygamy is required for salvation" or "God was once a man" or the other multitude of things that have been taught over the pulpit but never officially canonized as doctrine? SR uses the term "theology" to refer to these non-canonical teachings which can be changed. Is that unambiguous enough to use in the article?

Also related is the idea of "practice" vs. "doctrine". The prophet can't change the doctrine that Jesus Christ is the son of God, but he can clarify what that means, possibly changing the beliefs of many members. The prophet can't change the doctrine of baptism, but he can change who can be baptized, when they can be baptized, and how baptism should be performed. The prophet can't change the doctrine of repentance, but he can change what qualifies as proper repentance and he can change what processes a person has to go through to repent of specific sins. So my question is: how do we convey in the article the idea that the prophet can change all the things I said he can change without giving the impression that the prophet can change the things he can't change? --Dlugar 07:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I think "theology" would be a good way to go. IMO, the Mormon Church accepts the idea that the Prophet receives revelation from God that can change theology but not necessarily doctrine - at least in the way you outlined it above. We don't need to get into a complex discussion of this on the Anti-Mormonism article, though. In fact, what is on the page now looks decent: "the belief that the president of the Church is a living prophet with the ability to receive ongoing revelation and, as Jack Welch explains, to clarify doctrine and change practices related to that doctrine". uriah923^(talk) 14:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree - good points. The difference is subtle. For example the I can't really imagine a change to the Jesus Christ is the Savior, the son of God that would clarify what that means since the docrine is very specific - seperate being, only begotten, etc. You make a good point about baptism, to be baptized, for example, one can't be on probation or in jail(in general), can't be late on child support payments, must attend church services, but these are more like policies - where the doctrine is that all men must repent, and be baptised by immersion by one having the priesthood authority to act in the name of God whereby one enters into a covenant with God to declare ones intent to follow Jesus Christ, always remember Him and covenant to keep His commandments).

With that said I think the wording as stands (even though some of it is mine☺) conveys this nuance pretty well. --Trödel 17:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

With regards to clarification about Jesus Christ, I was thinking about stuff like Jehovah of the Bible ... I believe early Church members believed that Jehovah of the OT was God the Father, whereas that was "clarified" to say that Jesus=Jehovah. Anyway, that's beside the point :) I don't particularly like the wording as stands, but I can't think of anything better at the moment so I'll just let it sit until I have a flash of insight. :) --Dlugar 03:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - that isn't really a critical doctrine - and for some reason that comment reminded me of reverse divine investiture... --Trödel 04:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mormons speaking out against other faiths

I removed the section added on this topic, as it is out of place in this article. The information should likely go in Criticism of Mormonism. uriah923^(talk) 22:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

I have mixed feelings about the links in the "critical" section. We need to be sure this remains an article about anti-Mormonism and not a summary of criticisms. Right now, the links under "apologist" are actually about anti-Mormonism, while the links under "critical" are just sites that many consider anti-Mormon. I think things should be modified so only articles about anti-Mormonism (from all viewpoints) are included in the external links section. The sites commonly considered anti-Mormon should probably be included in the Modern section, but not simply as a list. A short paragraph about the Internet being a very common local for what is deemed anti-Mormon activities, along with a couple of the most prominent examples and then perhaps a footnote with more. What does everyone think? uriah923^(talk) 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Dlugar 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree --Trödel 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

There is so much considered anti-Mormon out there, we should be able to get some good modern photos. There is a really good one here - does anyone know of a way to use it? I also have an anti-Mormon pamphlet at home that I'll try and get a quality photo of for the article. uriah923^(talk) 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Big changes

I made some major changes to the Christian groups section. I removed material that centered on the LDS church and tried to emphasize anything about anti-Mormonism. Some of the relevant details are in footnotes, but the counterpoints by Mormons (for example) have been completely removed. I think it's important to keep this on topic to avoid getting into point-for-point arguments about the Church and its doctrine. uriah923^(talk) 16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good so far - I made a note that a differne cite is needed for this sentence:

One critic of Mormonism has described their material as "slanted, biased, and downright mean...," although characterizing it as mostly true.

It currently has a footnote which cites Tanner's own work ("Tanner, Jerald & Sandra - "Mormonism : Shadow or Reality?"". LDS-Mormon.com. Retrieved 2006-06-01.). To keep a claim that a critic characterizes their work as true requires a cite to a third party - not their own work. --Trödel 19:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Good call. uriah923^(talk) 20:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what the problem is here--the citation refers to the LDS-Mormon.com web site, which wasn't written by the Tanners. The web site reviews the book (and is primarily critical of it), but does characterize it as "mostly true". What's the deal? --Dlugar 04:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a bunch of cites to the SL tribune - they all require a fee to look at them so I left a link out - figuring it would just be annoying to click the link and get a "pay fee to see this news story" message. --Trödel 21:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

17 pages versus the entire manual. I know the lawsuit between the church and the Tanner's involved 17 pages, and I couldn't find a cite to indicate this - so far - but my memory is that they had the entire book for a short period of time before they reduced the material on their website to the 17 pages and tried to claim it as fair use --Trödel 21:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to the firsthand report of the lawsuit, excerpted below:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon104.html

This misrepresents the news article. It is not a "firsthand report," but rather an analysis, in 2003, of events that mostly occured in 2000, but at the very a couple years earlier. --Trödel 02:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.answers.com/firsthand&r=67 Anon166 20:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Great definition as firsthand means "Received from the original source...marked by the absence of any intervention" and as the news article below 1) has an intervention of time and 2) does not claim original sources. --Trödel 00:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

After receiving an anonymously sent computer disk in the mail in October of 1999, the Tanners discovered it contained the 1998 LDS Church Handbook of Instructions. The Handbook is restricted only to church leaders and is not made available to the church's members.

Due to numerous requests from individuals confused about how to go about quitting the LDS Church, the Tanners felt it necessary to provide accurate information for those who they felt had the legal right to leave. Out of the 160-page handbook, the Tanners posted 17 pages on their website giving instructions as to how one has their church membership terminated.

Within three months, representatives from the LDS Church's law firm served legal papers threatening them that if they didn't remove the material by 2 p.m. that day, they would be sued for copyright infringement. It was the first time the LDS Church had acknowledged the Tanners' existence. Though Sandra and Jerald didn't feel they had violated any copyright laws, they nevertheless removed the material by 1 p.m. and posted the church's letter to them in its place.

Regardless of their compliance, the LDS Church filed a copyright lawsuit against the Utah Lighthouse Ministry in the U.S. District Court.

In reporting the story, the Salt Lake Tribune listed Internet addresses that contained the entire handbook, causing a rush of individuals to connect to the sites. As e-mails poured onto the Tanner's public web pages, several messages listed the same Internet addresses resulting in a complaint by LDS attorneys to the judge. In response, the judge included a restriction against posting web addresses containing material from the handbook.

News affiliates from around the country, including The New York Times and numerous computer magazines, picked up the story warning of a "chilling effect" and a "blow to a key feature of the Web." The case was watched closely to settle the question of whether or not providing Internet links to copyrighted material amounts to contributory copyright infringement.

Forever on a shoestring budget, the Tanners were up against a Goliath and opted to settle with the LDS Church rather than spend money they didn't have and use precious time they needed to serve the ministry.

Finally, in November 2002, the LDS Church dropped the suit on the condition that the Tanners agree to destroy all copies and not print more than 50 words at a time from the handbook in any future articles. "It's ridiculous. We could eventually print the entire handbook, 50 words at a time," laughs Sandra. "The suit was just an obvious attempt to try to shut us down. To this day, other sites still post the entire handbook, and anyone can find them with just a simple search."

Salt Lake City Weekly/March 27, 2003; By Andrea Moore Emmett

Anon166 23:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read that and the other articles - however, they don't contradict the fact that the Tanner's posted the entire manual before reducing to 17 pages. (note by Posting I mean providing a file for downloading and not necessarily converting all the text to HTML) And the links they provided also had the full text not just the 17 pages including a link to a website "chi" which continues to have the full text (based out of a scandinavian country) - and who hated microsoft so much that even if you wanted to see the manual you couldn't if you used internet explorer. --Trödel 00:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a reference to the fact they provided the entire manual for download. That would be news to me. Anon166 00:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a reference, other than seeing it with my own eyes, which is original research. That is why I left it in the article as you edited. I brought it up on this page in case someone else had a reference.

Additionally, the Salt Lake City Weekly article says , "Regardless of their compliance, the LDS Church filed a copyright lawsuit..." Unfortunately this is not a NPOV description of the situation as the Tanner's did not comply with the request since they continued to be a contributory infringer. --Trödel 01:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they were infringing. Where does it say that besides in what you wrote in the main article? In every article I read, the LDS church had "sued them anyway." You seem to imply that the Tanner's did anything wrong. In fact, most observers think what they did was fair use, and experts offered this insight in articles I read. They often acknowledged that the suit was to put them under. Anon166 01:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

There is obviously a disagrement over whether the use was fair use or infringement; thus the lawsuit. Title 17, US Code, Section 107 four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

As the US Copyright office explains, "The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined."[4]

Therefore to imply that they "sued them anyway" is not a neutral representation of the situation. Although 17 pages doesn't seem like much, in Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corporation use of a small percentages of the works were copied; however the court ruled that the copying infringed. So the answer is not as clear cut as you describe.

The case also got national attention because it was a case of first impression. The Tanners did remove the material from their website; however they continued to provide links to other websites which provided the material, and the Church sued them for contributory infringement. The courts had not looked at this type of case where the relationship between the initial infringment and the contributor infringement involved internet linking and downloading. Many commentators felt that the case could have a chilling effect on the internet if a website that linked to a second website could be held to be a contributary infringer based on the second's infringement. However, this was a sensationalistic view of the situation, as it ignored the initial infringement of the Tanners (contributory infringement requires actualy infringment - see The New York Times article that supports this view, but also provides information about the distinguishing characteristics - including Judge Campbell's analysis that it was the prior infringement that could give rise tothe contributory cause of action).

Finally, the last comment, "They often acknowledged that the suit was to put them under," is an interesting one, as it implies that someone else is accusing the church of using the suit to put the Tanner's under, and the Tanners are merely agreeing with that assessment. However, it ignores the alternative view of the situation, i.e. that the Tanners benefited financially from the publicity of the case, both in increased revenues to their bookstore and increased hits to their website. Unfortunately, despite "acknowledging that the suit was to put them under," the Tanners did not provide any evidence to support the view. --Trödel 02:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I note that your commentary implies that this case doesn't seem to blame them for providing it for download as you suggested. Finally, you may sit and worry about POV all you want, but the fact remains that they complied, and they got sued anyway, as most summaries concluded. The internet community followed this case, with many comments implying the legal mismatch, and the tactic, similar to Scientology, that uses the legal system for revenge. Just because you can't see it any other way, by way of sworn devotion, doesn't make anyone else guilty of POV. The Tanners are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Anon166 04:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

the fact remains they partially complied, they got sued, and a judge ruled they did not comply despite thier claim to the contrary. I can see it other ways - in fact if I was to argue the Tanners view I would argue that they could not be considered to be contributorily negligent because there was no causal connection between the initial infringement and the subsequent contributory actions since there was no proof that the sites they linked to originally acquired the copyrighted material from the tanners, but could have just as easily acquired it from the anonymous person who sent it to the tanners. Unfortunately, they settled the case, continue to claim they were persecuted, and just like much of their anti-mormon material - provide no verifiable evidence of their claims - just continued inuendo and self reference. --Trödel 16:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing - "presumed innocent until proven guilty" - WTF - do you even know what you are talking about? In the United States you are innocent of CRIMINAL charges until proven guilty - there is no such right in any country, that I know of, regarding the disputes between two organizations or people in civil actions. --Trödel 16:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Presumed innocent until proven otherwise. I made no direct association to guilt, and you are the one talking about POV concerning statements made of the Tanners, which I defined as innocent until proven otherwise. It had nothing to do with law. Injunctions don't make your point either, which only made it "controversial" and that leads me to question your POV here. Anyone with NPOV would see it that way. I suppose this is a bad time to ask since you are apparently upset, but do you intend on removing the POV you placed in the article implying that they provided the source information for full download? Is there a reason you need the reader to presume their lack of innocence? Anon166 16:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not upset - just emphasizing my point - the injunction has a high level of proof - the judge must find that the party requesting the injunction is "likely to prevail" and will suffer "irreperable harm" - of course there is a trial to show otherwise; however, the Tanners felt it wise to not take that risk (as did the Church) so they found a way to settle the charges. The arguments you are making about the Tanner's lawsuits are those of the pop culture and the technology journals and do not reflect an understanding of the law or the case.

Our duty is to present things neutrally and not presume innocence or guilt. --Trödel 00:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Big Changes?

What happened to this section? It's now poorly written, full of spelling errors, and in my estimation gutted. I realize that we don't want this article to be full of criticisms of Mormonism, but I think it's fair to mention some of the basic doctrinal differences. Also the phrase "Some of these anti-Mormon Christians" illustrates the primary difficulty of this article--trying to describe anti-Mormonism without labeling people as anti-Mormon. I don't like the turn this section has taken--does anyone else feel the same? --Dlugar 04:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Dlugar, I agree with that and much more. There is very little balance in the article, which informationally serves the strawman view that anti-Mormon is anyone opposed to a purity of thought, rather than sincerely opposed to thought reform itself--including defending attacks on their own beliefs going unanswered. This strawman view serves the growing fundamentalist faction of Mormonism, that seeks to define loyalty as righteousness, never conscience. Utah would be a polygamous poverty zone opposed to the US government without so-called anti-Mormons.Anon166 16:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Your POV is showing. Val42 23:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't hide it from myself. How do you pull that off anyway? Anon166 00:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My point was that you're not hiding it from anyone. Dlugar has a point, this article does need to be rewritten. It needs to be written from an anti-Mormonism point of view, but we've had repeated difficulty in finding someone so inclined. But, by your opinion of what would happen in Utah if left to the Mormons, you have self-nominated to be the one to rewrite this article. I am willing to second your self nomination. Get to writing. Val42 01:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

From an anti-Mormon point of view? Are you serious? This is an article about anti-Mormonism. It should be objective and informative - just like the article on Mormons shouldn't be written from a Mormon point of view. uriah923^(talk) 04:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me be as clear as I can on my point of view. This article is on "Anti-Mormonism", but it is as neutral as we can write it from (as far as I can tell) Mormons writing it. We need someone who holds an opposing point of view to add more information from the "other side". We've had this discussion before but found no one who would admit to holding a view openly hostile to those of the Latter Day Saint movement and be willing to write about it with (supported) facts here on Wikipedia. Do we have someone now?

Or do you have another proposal to bring balance to this article?

I ask both of these questions not to be hostile myself, but because this article does need to be balanced. Val42 05:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the problem is not that there haven't been those who are more familiar with that point of view being willing to write - the problem is that no one yet has been willing to suffer the pains of verification and scholarship analysis on their writing - and they have gotten frustrated with the rigors of the neutral point of view policy, classifying it as watering down the truth by the mormons - and some of them even going so far as to suggest consipiracies between mormon leaders and Wikipedia administrators.

I have yet to meet, in person or online, a person who firmly believes in all the anti-mormon literature, who can abide any challenge to their faith in Joseph Smith's accusers, ie who are willing to allow the same level of scrutiny to be applied to the motives and character of the sources they are trying to use to impeach Joseph. Of course, although that is my experience, it also is my POV showing ;) --Trödel 20:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the article as it now stands, I basically see mostly information that is negative about people who oppose the LDS Church. First it labels them anti-Mormon, then aligns them with murderers and mobsters from the 1800s. In the "Christian groups" section, the opposition is reduced to "Kingdom of the Cults" and General Conference street preachers, and then a paper with one Christian group admitting how crappy their anti-Mormon material is--all without any reference to why Christian groups would oppose Mormonism. Then there's the Tanners and Decker in the "Exmormon" section, again with primarily negative information about them. Then finally we get to a long section with quotes from Church leaders and apologists, until we finally get to the end--the "Rejection of the term" section, which is the only page in the entire article that isn't apologetic in nature (although several people have tried to add quotes from apologists to this section).

So ... what is to be done? I don't know. I don't think having an anti-Mormon rewrite the article will make it any better. I do feel like one of the major points in this article should be why people have opposed Mormonism, both historically and today, not just the actions they take. See Anti-Americanism for an example.

One question: what do you (each of you) see as the primary point of this article? Who will come to Wikipedia looking for this article? What will that person want information on? What will that person not want information on? What will they be most interested in finding out about? I think focusing on that will help us gain a new focus for the article and a more coherent vision for its contents. Thanks all! --Dlugar 04:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - I will compare the anti-americanism article and see what I can do. For me there is a big difference between "anti-Mormons" and legitimate scholarly criticism - and maybe both should be addressed in this article and distinguished. It is difficult to do so: just look at the comments on this talk page you will see what examples of anti-mormon behavior.

For me it will be hard to write about why they opposed Mormonism - because it will have many of the same faults that you mention - you ask a good question "why" people oppose mormonism? --Trödel 12:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying now, and basically you're asking for more information, in which case I agree. As it is, however, I think the info is objective and fact-supported. I also think that we've created a good outline and organization for the article from which it should be able to grow. The only thing it lacks, in essence, is an "expert" - and by that I don't mean someone who is hostile to the Church, but someone who has done serious research on the issue. Hopefully one will come along and help the cause. uriah923^(talk) 06:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dlugar makes some excellent observations, and asks the question "why are there anti-mormons"? I think that would be an excellent section to add.

There are several major objections/justifications I have heard from anti-Mormons:

They claim exclusively to be the "true church" (like Catholics)
The actively try to convert other christians (like Jehovah's Witnesses)
Their beliefs are radically different than traditional christianity. (Perceived lessening the status of Jesus and Heavenly Father)
Additional scriptures (and perceived treatment of Bible as "second class" scripture)
Rapid growth in membership and the tendency to stay and act together (like Nauvoo)
Tendency to break previous ties - early converts leaving home and travelling west; modern converts tend to not associate with former friends.

I am sure we could come up with more as we think about this. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 05:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

End of collaboration

The official Mormon collaboration on this article has ended, and I think the improvements that have been made are significant. Thanks, everyone, for your help - even if it had nothing to do with the collaboration. uriah923^(talk) 15:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Purpose Discussion

Who will read

From Dlugar:

What do you (each of you) see as the primary point of this article? Who will come to Wikipedia looking for this article? What will that person want information on? What will that person not want information on? What will they be most interested in finding out about?

"Focusing on that will help us gain a new focus for the article and a more coherent vision for its contents."

Reader looking for an explanation of what the term means? Why did my friend call that comment "anti-Mormon",

Reader looking for explanation of why there is so much vitriolic literature/websites about Mormonism

Reader looking for a reference to find criticisms of Mormons (specifically) The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS

Why is there opposition

Objections/justifications on why there is opposition

They claim exclusively to be the "true church" (like Catholics)

The actively try to convert other christians (like Jehovah's Witnesses)

Their beliefs are radically different than traditional christianity. (Perceived lessening the status of Jesus and Heavenly Father)

Additional scriptures (and perceived treatment of Bible as "second class" scripture)

Rapid growth in membership and the tendency to stay and act together (like Nauvoo)

Tendency to break previous ties - early converts leaving home and travelling west; modern converts tend to not associate with former friends.

Discussion

I have copied some of the good questions/comments into an area that I hope will allow us to focus on the suggestions that Dlugar made - first in identifying our audience, and secondly explaining why there even needs to be an article about this. --Trödel 13:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

^ [5]

[1] [5]

[1]

Archives