Talk:Anti-Mormonism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)
• They 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
  • "Godhead" versus "Trinity"
  • Relationship of Grace and works
• 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 perceived to not associate with former friends.

History

• Historic anti-Mormonism
  • Mormons were killed because of their religion
  • Leaders were killed and repeatedly jailed
  • Mormons were driven from state to state (by mobs and governments) until settling in Utah
  • Once in Utah, 1/3 of the standing army of the United States was sent to Utah

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)

I think another problem we have is that some of the groups that could be included under Christian groups are not included out of deference for their claim to not be "anti-Mormon" - i.e. there is a difference between anti-Mormon literature and promoters and those that use that literature in preaching to their members about the dangers of cults - who may or may not know whether the literature they are using has factual issues. --Trödel 14:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reorganization of the Talk page--very helpful! I think this will definitely move us in the right direction.

Regarding 'deference for their claim to not be "anti-Mormon"', I don't think that's an accurate appraisal. I think just about everybody who opposes the Church claims not to be anti-Mormon. Rather there's been some attempt in this article to classify "people against the Church whose material has factual issues" as anti-Mormon, whereas people who are against the Church but whose material is more or less factual, are not anti-Mormon. This is a judgment call on the part of Wikipedia which really shouldn't be here, and I think a source of a lot of the conflict over this page. Some editors have tried to remove any reference to anyone (since they believe that all of the "anti-Mormons" are just telling the truth, and therefore not anti-Mormon), whereas other editors have tried to leave references to only the most inflammatory and inaccurate "anti-Mormons". I'm not sure that making such distinctions is helpful to the goals of this page. What do you think? --Dlugar 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comment - I agree - I tend to think of people who don't care about facts, etc. as anti-Mormon, and others as critics. I still remember the tract one of my investigators got on the mission which had a list under a title "What Christians should know about Mormons"(paraphrase) that included in the bullet list (verbatim) "Mormons don't believe there can be a Christ (Alma 30:15)" Read it in context and you'll see why I think it is classic anti-Mormon.

Maybe we could define anti-Mormon literature as any published tract/book/etc that seeks to persuade the reader that 1) Mormonism is a cult, 2) Mormons are not Christian, or 3) actively seeks to help Mormons "recover" leave. We may need a slightly different definition for a website since many of the websites just copy information from other - and we should focus on the information providers.

This way we could differentiate true religious studies e.g. an article that seeks to define what a Christian is and see if Mormons fit the definition. Or an analysis of the Mormon Godhead and Gnostic arguments at Nicene. --Trödel 19:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Very good summary. And a good way to get this article back on track. I made some minor changes too, I hope you don't mind. Val42 23:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thx - I see the list as open for edits and revisions based on the discussion. so change away :) --Trödel 00:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree on grouping literature aimed at "recovery" from Mormonism necessarily together with those that try to depict the LDS Church as a "cult" or as not Christian. Some "recovery" literature certainly can be grouped with these, but typically also makes one or both of the latter two arguments; a lot of other material on "recovery" from Mormonism is by or for former LDS members who do not make any "cult", "non-Christian", or otherwise inflammatory arguments, but rather should be grouped with literature critical of the LDS Church as opposed to being "anti-Mormon". - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 00:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant "recover" in the sense of actively helping people to leave the church (and thus recover from their brainwashing), not recover in the sense of helping people who have already choosen to leave find a support group with the transition etc. So I think we are close --Trödel 00:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Do there exist any such groups in the former sense? --Dlugar 01:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Other than remembering seeing them didn't have time to research this - here are a few I found in about 20 min using google:

• Hassan, Steven's Freedom of Mind Resource Center lists Mormonism as a cult using Mind Control and whose members need help to leave - see also analysis of Mormonism according to the BITE model
• Hutchinson, Janis. Author of Out of the Cults and Into the Church: Understanding and encouraging ex-cultists; also The Mormon Missionaries. website quoting her book.
• Patrick, Ted - founded Citizen's Freedom Foundation attempted to deprogram Catholics and Episcopalians, and also deprogrammed four Mormons. "The Mormon Church," said Patrick, "is one of the biggest cults in the nation."(Phil Stanford, "The Quiet War on Cults," Inquiry, 15 October 1979, p. 7. http://www.namebase.org/news05.html quoted here [no link because namebase is on Wikipedia's list of spam sites )
• Ross, Rick A. - specialist in cults and deprogramming includes mormons amongst those that need help
• Szimhart, Joseph P. - a professional "deprogrammer" (part of the deprogramming case that went to the Idaho supreme court[1]

I was heartened to see that while some groups label the LDS church a cult they recognize that there is considerable freedom to leave --Trödel 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as an interesting aside - there are also nearly 11,000 hits on google for mormon lizard men illuminati - what else can I say about irrational anti-Mormon behavior --Trödel 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, by googling Mormon "lizard men" illuminati you only get 139. I didn't find any that made the point, but I'm sure one exists. Anon166 04:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That you can browse through those 139 articles and not find irrational anti-Mormon behavior speaks volumes --Trödel 17:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can help me out here. Only a few contain all three terms, and one is making the same point you are. [2]Which article are you referring to? I'm sure there is one, because it stands to reason that it started the rumor you are spreading. Anon166 18:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I do think we should identify what anti-Mormon is and what it is not - and I think we are qualified to make that distinction as there are verifiable sources on it - as discussed by others on this page - there is a difference between anti-Mormon and true criticism. This page should explain that, rather then discuss all the criticisms - but it should of course link to the criticisms as appropriate. We should also include the rejection of that term by those to whom it applies. --Trödel 15:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't forget about the extent of historical anti-Mormonism. I've added that section above. Val42 18:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is labeling useful?

(I moved this section here from above because I think it was getting missed among the rest of the discussion, but I think it's important to the future direction of this article.)

I don't think it's beneficial in any way to group things into "true anti-Mormonism" and "not anti-Mormonism". Making an arbitrary definition like the above is useful for labeling, but not so useful for a Wikipedia entry, in my opinion. But we can, I think, show some sort of subjective scale, perhaps. I'm thinking of the "Why did my friend call that comment 'anti-Mormon'?" question.

• What are the sorts of things people call "anti-Mormon"? Why does [most?] everyone who are called "anti-Mormon" reject the term?
  • People who actively try to get Mormons to leave their faith (ranging from people who use falsehoods to achieve that goal to people who "sensationalize" the truth to achieve that goal to people who just stick more or less to the facts)
  • People who try to show how Mormons are not Christian
  • People who write negatively about Mormonism
  • People who write about Mormonism in a "religious studies" way
  • People who provide "recovery" in the "support group" sense
  • People who research Mormon History
  • etc.

Then that opens up the article to talk about why some people call some of these "anti-Mormon" but not the others, without having to make any judgment calls on the part of Wikipedians. In other words, "criticism" and "wild inflammatory nonsense" can both be discussed on this page, and the distinction between the two can be made--rather than limiting what's on this page to "Christians are cannibals!" type diatribe. What do you think? --Dlugar 01:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Responses to "Why is there opposition?"

One thing I worry about in having a "Why is there opposition?" section as outlined above is that it tends to become "bullet point" -> "rebuttal" very quickly. For example,

• They claim exclusively to be the "true church" (like Catholics)
  • But they embrace all religions, and there are tons of other religions that claim to be the "true church" too, so this claim is really just sensationalism
    • If a Methodist wants to become a Baptist, they can do so with minimal effort. Most protestant religions recognize ordinances performed by other protestant religions. However, if a Protestant wants to become a Catholic or a Mormon, they have to be re-baptized, because neither church recognizes ordinances performed by those religions. (Maybe Catholics have changed by now ... it has been a very long time since I was one.)
• They actively try to convert other christians (like Jehovah's Witnesses)
  • But not really, missionaries are just out there to share a message, not to try to actively convert people
    • If you go to Japan, or any other location where non-Christians are prominent, you will find that the Protestant missionaries will not try to convert Christians of other religions. Mormons, however, will do that. Also, I don't know where you live, but all the missionaries I know of are actively trying to convert people.
• Their beliefs are radically different from traditional christianity.
  • They're actually mostly the same, the perceived lessening of the status of Jesus and Heavenly Father is just perceived, Mormons really place more importance on them than most Christians do, and the whole "Godhead" vs. "Trinity" thing is way blown out of proportion, and grace vs. works is just sensationalized too, and the bible isn't "second class" scripture
    • Try to convince a Non-Mormon of the above assertions. Instead of God always being a perfect, all-powerful being, he was once a man like you or me (or at least like Jesus). And instead of Jesus being God who, for a brief time, became like you and me, he was always like you and me (only better). Calling Jesus our "Elder Brother" really upsets many Christians. If there are any conflicts betweent the Book of Mormon and the Bible, Mormons always go with the Book of Mormon because it is the "most correct book." Look at the Sunday School lesson manual for the Old Testament. You will find many lessons where most (if not all) the scripture references are from LDS scriptures rather than the actual Old Testament of the Bible.

... and so on. Possibilities:

1. Go ahead and have "point" -> "counterpoint" sections
   • drawbacks: they are hard to read and sound unprofessional
2. Only have the "point" with no counterpoint at all
   • drawbacks: sometimes the "points" can get pretty outrageous when there are no counterpoints allowed
3. Not have either--point the reader to another Wikipedia article devoted to the subject
   • drawbacks: can leave the article empty and perhaps one-sided (this is where I think the article currently is)
4. Have an unmolested "point" section, and a similarly unmolested "counterpoint" section elsewhere in the article
   • drawbacks: It's difficult to have a coherent "counterpoint" section when it's physically removed from the "point" section.

Thoughts? --Dlugar 02:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If we are going in a new direction then I would be against any direction that leads to an explanation of "why" there are anti-Mormons that entailed doctrinal disuptes. Please see Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Criticism of Mormonism and Mormonism and Christianity for those issues. The first article is, INHO, obscene for an encylclopedia. It is a diatribe of whatever anyone thought is, was, might be, possibly could be, and heard a neighbor, whose neighbor's best friend's third counsin, acquaitance at a party said about Mormonism. The other two are redundant and could easily be one article. I am strongly against creating another article that regurgitates the same information. If we do not have something unique to say, then delete the article. If there is something unique to say, then say it and only it. Resist bleeding into other articles.

Anti-Mormonism is a term used by the Latter-day Saint people. The term should be explained and examples provided. This article should also state what Anti-Mormonism is not and provide examples. Also, a conflict exists in Mormonism about this definition and some feel that criticism is just as much Anti-Mormonism as sensationalized, falsehoods. This conflict should be discussed in a forthright manner. This could be very enlightening to LDS as well as those outside the church.

Should we go beyond these parameters, the article turns redundant. By all means provide links to other pages, but this should not be allowed to bleed over into what is already covered in a multitude of articles. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I sort of agree with Storm Rider, but I do beleive a list of categories most cited in Anti-Mormon literature is appropriate. Anti-Mormon literature is different than Criticsm of Mormonism. It does criticize, but in a sensationalist way rather than a scholarly way. Also, I don't agree with the counterpoints to my original list, and have added some comments there. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Bill, look at the cited Controversies or even the Mormonism and Christianity articles above and you already get a list of what is wrong with Momonism. Now, if you are talking about some of the outlandish claims of Anti-Mormon literature to be used as examples, great. I always enjoyed the one about the young 16 girl Brigham Young married and kept in the Salt Lake temple, but she being a stout girl climbed to the tallest spire to get away from that dirty old Brigham Young and jumped into th great Salt Lake. She swam away and eventually traveled to the East to tell her tale of woe among the Mormon people. I can't tell you how many times I had old women feel my forehead just tobe sure that I really did not have horns. That is the fruit of Anti-Mormonism, not criticism or doctrinal disagreement. That is the type of schtick this article should focus. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I heard that one too, on my mission in Argentina. My companion and I discussed it afterwards and decided that she would have to be above Olympic quality to do a long-jump of several miles. Val42 18:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about specific complaints as much as I am talking about why people get so emotional when talking about the Mormon Church. If a Baptist and a Methodist talk about their differences, it will most likely be a fairly calm discussion. However, ask either one of them about the Mormon Church, and you will most likely get a very emotional response. IMHO, that is the real source of Anti-Mormon material ... the fact that it is a very emotional topic, and Anti-Mormon material feeds on that emotion. That is why I believe it is a separate topic than criticsm of the Mormon Church, or even a comparison of Mormon Doctrine and traditional Christianity (whatever that is.) If we don't address the reason why Anti-Mormon material is created and consumed, then we are actually talking about criticsm.

As an example, in one of the "No More Stranger" volumes, there was an incident where a minister's wife converted to Mormonism. The other ministers (I think it was on an army base or some place like that) were very upset. When the woman's husband pointed out that several of the minister's spouses were of a different denomination, the response was that being married to a Mormon was like being married to a Communist.

While it is true that most Anti-Mormon material is criticism against the Mormon Church (the rest are fabricated), it is not true that all criticsm is Anti-Mormon. (At least by my definition.) It seems to me that this article should explain to a non-involved reader what those differences are, and how/why they contribute to the existence of Anti-Mormonism.

I also think that some examples of how facts/interpretations can be sensonalized to convert criticsm into anti material would help illustrate the point. 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 07:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Something like the above might help people understand what we are talking about. The points I mentioned above were an attempt to identify what portions of LDS doctrine causes such emotional reactions. It was based on a number of conversations with my brother who used to send me anti-mormon material on a regular basis. Certain differences in doctrine were fine by him, but the ones on that list produced an extremely emotional response. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 12:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Bill, I can't disagree with anything you have said, but if I understand your objective, I am not qualified to contribute to the dicussion. I can edit for style, but providing documented reasons why other Christians are so emotional about Mormonism. This would necessarily delve into areas of psychology that are far beyond me. Why do people write lies about anything? Why do we believe sensationalized statements about other people. AntiMormonism is not criticism, it is the instigating and the spreading of hate for "those people".

We all do these things about "others". People who are different are strangers and we tend to think the worst of them. This was seen in Christian history from the very beginning. Christians were thought to sacrifice infants and children and have wierd sexual orgies. Lo and behold, as soon as the Christians were in control, Christians then projected those same accusations on pagans and other groups. The Cathars and the Knights Templar were both accused of such things. In reality I think this is like trying to describe evil. It may very well be beyond us. Do any of us have some good research that addresses these issues and that directly link them to antiMormonism?

Let's move ahead, but I still advise that we focus strictly on the topic and do not repeat what has been said in other articles. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that turning this page into an article all about criticisms of Mormonism is definitely the wrong direction to take, I think there's a huge difference between sensationalized statements such as what you are talking about, and statements like "Mainstream Christians disagree with Mormons on these doctrinal issues" and then name some doctrinal issues that are disagreed upon. I don't think the way they were stated previously was inflammatory or sensationalized--they were presented as a simple list without provocative language and the wording was, as far as I could tell, very close to what you would see from a typical Mormon source.

I think this article can have examples (not an exhaustive list) from all the types of "anti-Mormonism" (using the phrase to mean anything "against Mormonism"), e.g.:

• examples of sensationalized material like "Mormons have horns" or "There are underground tunnels from all the temples to Salt Lake City"
• examples of claims which aren't particularly sensationalized or at least aren't obviously false, but which Mormons don't agree with
• examples of claims which Mormons tend to agree with, but don't like taken out of context
• examples of claims which tend to be matter-of-fact statements of differences, to which typical Mormons would nod and say, Yes, we just believe differently on that subject.

I think something along these lines would better fit what I now see as the primary objective of this page--answering the question, "Why did my friend call that comment 'anti-Mormon'?" and perhaps more importantly, "Why did [X] say that was 'anti-Mormon', but [Y] said it wasn't?" A reader of this page should come away realizing that one person might call something in the last category 'anti-Mormon', whereas somebody else might protest, thinking they're classifying it as something in the first category. --Dlugar 05:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Lindsay - again

I rewrote the Jeff Lindsay article, but it got flagged again for deletion, claiming it as a vanity page. I admit it is a stub, but don't think it is a vanity page. Consider voting on the issue [3] wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Anti-Mormonism

I reverted an edit today that questioned the reality of Anti-Mormonism by including the term "claimed"...this after the paragraph immediately prior explicitly stated the definition held by Mormons. Then seeking to dispute a reference in a Mormon Encyclopedia as conflicting with NPOV. References just need support the statement or quote in a section. If we dispute a reputable source because it comes from a protaginist then virtually all articles would need to be marked as violating NPOV. I strongly encourage a review of what a reference is and why they exist. If the editor would like to provide a counter statement and reference do it, but it is strictly POV, besides demonstrating a lack of understanding of references, to label a reputable reference as not meeting the standards of NPOV. Maybe you are attempting to state that the reference isn't reputable? Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the reference is reputable for statements of facts or definitions, since it is not information from a third-party objective viewpoint. If the reference is supporting Mormon views, then it is authoritative, endorsed as official. It can't be both. Mormon authors cannot contradict the official Mormon view and keep their church employment or church standing. Anon166 17:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I removed the POV tag. There hasn't been any kind of dispute concerning the content of this page for quite some time, and there is no discussion here on the talk page to which the tag can reference. --uriah923^(talk) 13:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• The POV tag is appropriate. The article was largely written by Mormons as a monthly serial collaboration[4], under informal direction, with any dissent being swept aside. It started well but got gradually worse. It is too Mormon oriented as it stands, and it cites apologists for determining what is anti-Mormon. To most Mormons, anti-Mormonism exists as a spiritual disease, and since this would be POV, Mormons attempt to describe this doctrine in a way that pretends it really does exist by spotlighting any opposition to their doctrine--even as they assert the inferiority of all other doctrines. It is a paranoia and a delusion that simply labels rational opposition to theocracy, polygamy and racism as Satanic-inspired hatred of God's chosen. I would add that by crying persecution, they have hidden their own persecutions of others. Anon166 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, so I suggest we try to get a consensus. If that does not happen, or if you're unwilling to live by the consensus, then we can seek arbitration. Anon166 and I have voiced our opinions - what does everyone else think, tag or no tag? --uriah923^(talk) 22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nor are you able to redefine "consensus" for Wikipedia.[5] This article needs more input from interested parties who aren't pro-Mormon. I will list it as a request for comment as soon as I can. Anon166 20:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think most of the article is neutral. The information in the section "Use of the Term" should be incorporated in the Introduction to make it clearer that the concept of Anti-Mormonism is mainly a Mormon concept. Therefore any discussion on this concept will be more about how Mormons perceive Anti-Mormonism rather than how non-Mormons perceive this concept. I am not sure of the neutrality of the "Exmormon" section. Without explaining any of Ed Decker's book, the book is condemned by proxy in that section. Skapur 23:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think the POV tag should be removed. Anon166 has contributed to the article in a number of ways, and is welcome to continue helping. IMHO, a POV tag should only be added if editors can't arrive at a consensus. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 00:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• The article is neutral; Anon166's perspective is tainted by his personal agenda and very narrow POV that he attempts to enforce on any article in which he participates. I am certain that nazies never admitted there was a aniti-Jewish activity in the republic, but that does not negate the reality of day. It would be the height of dishonesty or complete ignorance to state that anti-Mormonism does not exist in the US today. A tag is not acceptable without very clear, specific outline of how to remove the tag. Given that nothing of the sort exists at this time, the tag should be removed. That does not mean the tag could not be restored in the future if someone puts forth a legitimate list of complaints. I would hope we don't just resort to a constant POV tag; tyranny of the minority is still tyranny. If it gets heated, which it is not and has not been for the last many weeks, then we could resort to mediation. Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree the tag is not needed. Anon166's main issue is that the the collaboration of the month created a situation where the changes introduced resulted in a POV directed article where "any dissent [was] swept aside." My review of the changes (see prior link for history) convinces me that the article has improved considerably. Additionally, the version prior to the collaberation fits Anon166's characterization of the article's issues. While progress still needs to be made, and I think that Anon166 help will be indispensible in identifying specific language that needs to be revised, the current article meets that WP:V and neutrality standards. --Trödel 03:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a consensus is obvious. I have removed the tag. --uriah923^(talk) 20:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: Anon166 refuses to explain his latest act of re-adding the POV tag without any explanation. He has a history of not cooperating with editors who do not think exactly like he does. Mediation is an alternative; however, when a mediator comes in he typically runs away. He has a definite agenda and an axe to grind where anything remotely, I am speaking REMOTELY, positive about the LDS church is stated he feels compelled to have it removed.

It is legitimate to wait an additional period in the hopes of more comments being made. Uriah started this on the 4th; it should be given at least two full weeks before any action by concensus is implemented. Then should ANON166 revert again we could go for mediation with a legitmate complaint. I don't expect him to stay around for it, but I have always felt once a mediator comes in the article is improved. Thoughts? Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus has nothing to do with reverting POV tags in dispute, probably because the two words (dispute and consensus) are contradictory. See for yourself.[6] Under this policy, removal of the POV-check results in the full POV tag. I welcome mediation. Anon166 00:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to assume good faith when one's actions appear so blatant. You were the one who first put a POV tag on the article. Obviously, when no one was supporting your POV you chose to put a POV Check tag on the article. (rm ad-hominem personal attack per WP:NPA) You have yet to give specific reasons for either tag, which is directed by each tag. Either explain the specific reasons or remove the tag. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't respond to personal attacks or threats generally. We need mediation ASAP because the tag is demanded to be removed on what appears to be a partisan effort at modernly reviving a Mormon subjective POV term (which was used in the past to deflect criticism against polygamy, theocracy and racism and preserve those lifestyles). In fact, it takes pro-Mormonism to provoke anti-Mormonism, resulting in a clash involving Mormons and non-Mormons, for many reasons, for good and bad. As such, objective use of the word "anti-" should limit itself to a source that either claims itself as POV anti-Mormon; or those sources that claim Mormonism is either demonic or has no common right to exist in the manner of any other church. It cannot include scholarly, objective, or legitimate concerns regarding honesty, fairness, rule of law, or political equality--if NPOV is the policy. For example, if someone writes that Mormons consider Fawn Brodie to be anti-, then they should cite a quantifier or a statistic and explain how and why, not simply assume they are correct or that it is justified, which is POV (especially by citing frustrated apologetical sources as if a scholarly citation). Anon166 04:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

My Thoughts

In reading through the article I did not find any glaringly POV statements. The worst offender I found was actually this statement: Many non-Mormons and Exmormons reject the use of the term entirely on the grounds that the entity in question provides "valid information" and is, therefore, not "anti-Mormon" but "the truth."

The only other suggestion I have towards making this article NPOV is I would like to see the "Rejection of the Term" section given more prominence. It is a significant issue with regards to the usage of the term, but in an article this long it has become basically a footnote. The section is not lengthy nor is it vitriolic, and I think if more prominently featured would provide the article with more balance. Does anyone object to me moving it to the top of the article, to the "Use of the term" section?

Apart from the occasional poor writing, that's the only fault I can find with this article. I'd ask Anon166 to please state some concrete examples of sections he believes to be POV so that we can rewrite them. We can't change it if we don't know what's wrong with it. --Dlugar 05:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm down with moving the "rejection of the term" section to the "use of the term" section. Also, as for the wording issues below, just go ahead and fix them. --uriah923^(talk) 05:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving "Rejection of the term" up under usage makes sense to me as well. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 12:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Poor Writing

(This section is just notes for which sentences/phrases I think need work to flow together with the larger whole.) --Dlugar 05:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Others reserve the term for things enlisting inflammatory tactics.

Mormonism, or the Latter Day Saint movement, arose in western New York, the area where its founder Joseph Smith, Jr. was raised, during a period of religious revival in the early nineteenth century.

While the claims of a divine call often received a cold shoulder, the eventual publication of the Book of Mormon,[4] and the official organization of the Church of Christ in 1830 were met with increased opposition on various fronts.

Some of these anti-Mormon Christians are perhaps most visible as "Street Preachers" at LDS General Conferences, who often use signs and megaphones to harass Mormon conference-goers.

In one case, Carl Mosser and Paul Owens, two evangelical Christians, presented a paper that admitted a trend of anti-Mormon material to imply their claims have never been countered by Mormons, ignoring research done by apologists.

The court (District of Utah) granted the LDS Church's motion for an injunction.

Richard Packham, founder of the Exmormon Foundation, gives insight into the motiviations

Some have credited past government pressure towards Mormonism as responsible for overturning doctrines that were politically out of sync (e.g., polygamy and priesthood racial discrimination).

Problems with the current article

I came here from the RFC. After reading over the page, failed the GA nomination and changed the POV-Check to the NPOV dispute tag. I do think that a NPOV dispute exists at the moment-- Anon thinks there's a NPOV problem, I tend to agree, there's an RFC in process-- I think there's definitely an NPOV dispute.

Here are some things I think that are troublesome about the current article:

• The term "anti-mormon" is pretty controversial in-and-of itself. From what I read in the article, it doesn't seem to be a term that is usualy self-applied. Articles with these kinds of terms are tricky business. Think about an article discussing the opposition to abortion that uses the term "anti-choice". The people who oppose abortion generally do not label themselves "anti-choice", just as the opponents of mormonism usually do not label themselves "anti-mormons" so.. you have to be extra careful about how you say things.
• Another issue is this one. This article needs to decide whether it is about "anti-mormonism, the point of view" or "'anti-mormonism', the term". If it's about the point of view, then the title should be changed to something more neutral like Opposition to Mormonism. If it's about the term, then we need to tailor the content very, very specifically to talk about the term itself, not the movment.
• The wholesale list of books and websites labelled anti-mormon a) belongs in a bibliograhical section rather than in the main text b) should be labelted "opposition/criticism of mormonism rather than anti", and c) probably should be limited only to the absolutely most notable sources, rather than being a "clearinghouse".
• For all the talk about "anti-mormonism", I don't seen any actual content that's really critical OF mormonism.
• In general, it's hard to find the focus of the article. It seems like it's mostly "Mormon opinions of the oppositions to mormons"

See what more people have to say, but, I think there's lots of probs, and I don't know exactly how to go about fixing things.

--Alecmconroy 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the term "anti-mormon" itself - what it means, who uses it, what it is used to describe, what people think of its use, etc. Some wording issue no doubt exist (see previous section), but all of the present content fits within this paradigm. As you noted, it wouldn't be prudent to duplicate content from the already existing "Criticism of Mormonism" article - and yet, it seems people think there should be a POV tag because this content is absent. The fact is, if this is a term that is used primarily by Mormons, it is likely to be used in a way that is sympathetic to the Mormon point of view. The article can reflect that and still be neutral. --uriah923^(talk) 16:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideas for improvement

Thanks for the thoughts, Alecmconroy! I have a few ideas for improvement based on your suggestions.

• Move the "Rejection of the term" higher in the article. (I've already done this.) I think this makes it immediately apparent that this is an "anti-choice" kind of phrase.
• The article is definitely about "'anti-mormonism', the term". As Uriah923 pointed out, there are other articles about the point of view. I think we should make this explicit and say somewhere up-front, "This article is about the term. For more information about criticism of Mormonism, see that article." Or something along those lines.
• Move the wholesale lists of books critical of Mormonism to the "Criticism of Mormonism" page (since just about every book critical of Mormonism is going to be labeled "anti-Mormon"), and include in this article a link that says something like "For books and web sites commonly labeled as anti-Mormon, see [[Criticism of Mormonism#Whatever Section]]" or something similar.
• Again making explicit that this article is about the term "anti-Mormonism" and not the view will give more focus to the article and make it a lot more clear as well.

--Dlugar 20:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

My only concern is that Anti-mormonism and Criticism of Mormonism are two completely difference concepts (IMHO). I understand that there are some folks in Utah who think everything critical is anti-, but I would really like to see this article focus on the sensational and not reference Criticism. Hopefully, the Criticism page will list books and web sites honestly critical, which should be different than this list.

At one point, I had a list of examples of anti-mormon approaches, but that got deleted in favor of the history of the anti-. I could resurrect the list, but I would have problems coming up with citations, since most of the anti-mormon material I've seen is pretty ephemeral. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 00:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point. The items included in the article shouldn't be just anything critical of Mormonism, but things that have been called anti-Mormon and where such citations can be provided. Much of this has been done already, due to a previous protest against the inclusion of a such a list. --uriah923^(talk) 00:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly agree with Wrp103's concern. Criticism is not anti-Mormonism. Anti-Mormonism is sensationalistic, exaggerated, and often incorrect information about the history of Mormonism or its leaders. It defames and ridicules without any concern or desire to state true Mormon positions; if it is outlandish, regardless of truth, say it. Criticism is different. It is often a thoughtful, comparative review of actual Mormon doctrine and the reviewer's own church doctrine. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So do you think that every book or web site referenced in this article is "sensationalistic, exaggerated, and [contains] incorrect information"? --Dlugar 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think anyone with minimal understanding of the English language can read any site and quickly determine if something is sensationalistic. As I read many sites I find writing to initally be sensationalistic and then move into a historic/doctrinal discussion. History is often where one will begin to see a rather selective collection of "facts"; they are polemic writers and are not really interested in discussion history from a historical perspective, but rather to prove their specific point. It was always one of the issues I had with Brodie's work; she told you she wanted to disprove Joseph's story and then left contradictory facts out of her thesis. She wrote to achieve her objective; not as a true historian should write.

Some sites are excellent. They tell you that this is what Mormons believe and this is why they disagree with it. Not interested in defaming leaders, Joseph Smith, etc.; they just diagree with the doctrine. The Tanner's can play both sides. Some of their stuff is good, honest, historical research. However, they often have a sensationalistic delivery. I have not read any site that I think is 100% anti-Mormon; generally I find a mix of criticism and anti-Mormon delivery. Dlugar, does that help clarify my position? Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It does, Storm Rider, thanks. What worries me is that there's no objective way to determine whether any of these books or web sites is sensationalistic or exaggerated. Currently the requirement for listing a book or web site in one of the lists is that somebody has called it "anti-Mormon" (and a citation can be found). That's an objective requirement, one that everyone can agree on. But I think you'll agree with me that if that is the sole requirement, every single book that is critical of Mormonism will eventually end up on listed on this page. Hence we either need some other objective way to determine what gets listed, or people will argue and whine about the lists for centuries. I just don't think that a requirement of "somebody as called it anti-Mormon and it's sensationalist" is objective enough to be agreed upon by even the majority of editors of the page, and I think the discussion on this talk page supports that conclusion.

Finally, I don't think a massive list of books and web sites is particularly useful for the typical reader of this article. I would much rather see, as someone suggested below, actual examples from the books and web sites as to what is sensational, misleading, or incorrect. This would accomplish several things: first, as you mention, it isn't just a black-and-white issue--there are differing degrees. A pamphlet that states, as a fact, that virgin girls are raped or murdered inside Mormon temples is considerably different from a book that is more or less factual but "leaves out" some facts that aren't quite in line with the book's thesis. Similarly, a book that misquotes the Book of Mormon to imply that Mormons don't believe Jesus Christ is the savior is considerably different from Jack Chick's pamphlet on Mormonism. So stating explicitly the sensationalist, misleading, or incorrect information is far more helpful to the reader--they get a better idea of what statements, phrases, or ways of putting things get labeled as "anti-Mormon", and they see that not everything that gets labeled anti-Mormon is identical in degree. Probably some Mormons think that all anti-Mormon material is of the order of young girls jumping off temples to swim to freedom; probably some non-Mormons think that all anti-Mormon material is factually correct and just says things that Mormons don't agree with, so it gets labeled as anti-Mormon. Quotes will help disillusion both parties.

The second thing it would accomplish is it would force Mormon editors to actually identify what is sensational, misleading, or incorrect in these different books and web sites. I've heard several references now to "ephemeral" anti-Mormonism, the stuff that says really vile and obviously untrue things, but we can't actually find any of it. Rather than taking a host of books and web sites that spread across a very broad spectrum and painting them with that same brush, wouldn't it be so much better to actually grab a few pamphlets from the entrance of some Southern Baptist church, scan them into Wikipedia, and show exactly what sort of inflammatory things some people say about Mormons? I'd love to see this article acknowledge that there are some people saying wacky and obviously untrue things about Mormons, other people saying some true and some untrue things, and still others saying mostly true things but in a sensational manner.

What do you folks think? --Dlugar 04:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is as much for LDS as it is for others. There are Mormons who label everything that is perceived as negative as anti-Mormon; I think this is an incorrect application of the term and it lessens the value of the accusation against what I feel is truely anti-Mormon. Providing examples of anti-Mormon writing and claims would be good; however, in doing so we invite the same conflict in identifying what is "true" anti-Mormon writing and what is not. As you say, there are varying degrees of this type of writing; a continuium from the grossly outlandish to simply leaving out facts of the whole history.

I spent a few hours researching information and came upon the FAIR site. I have seen it before, but seldom have used it. On Fairlds.com I read the following definition of anti-Mormon writers:

1. Try to sound concerned and caring.
2. Try to sound impartial, but cast everything about Mormonism in its most negative light.
3. At all costs, say nothing positive about Mormonism!
4. If something positive must be said, make it sound sinister and deceptive.
5. Portray Mormonism so that everything sounds either ridiculous or outrageous, or both.
6. Even though you may be stretching the truth, it's okay, because the end (i.e., converting Mormons) justifies the means; plus, you'll be doing God a favor.

I think this attempts to define writing style for anti-Mormon literature in their opinion. It is much less dramatic and sidesteps the more provocative claim of outright lying or sensationalistic writing that I choose to use, but maybe it is something to consider. However, I particularly would agree with the last four statements. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. First, let's agree on what "sensational" means. I think we won't have a hard time agreeing that something "sensational" is something that appeals to people's emotions, and is probably strongly biased, and is likely to be less than true, like sensational tabloid news (see M-W dictionary entry). To me, the entire "testimony" and story of the prophet Joseph Smith fits that description 100%. The factual accuracy of that tale is very shaky, especially considering how many times it's been edited and perfected to be just right - the Joseph Smith story the way we know it, was never documented until 18 years after it was alleged to have happened. Even tabloids are more reputable than that. Yet I doubt you, as another speaker of the English language, would have recognized its sensational nature, due to being blinded by your own personal Joseph-Smith-believing POV. To me, Joseph Smith was simply such a persuasive liar, he could have sold his own dirty diapers, claiming he saw gold mines inside and have become a self-made millionare by the age of six months. The examples of "Anti-Mormonism" quoted here (such as the so-called story of the girl who jumped off the temple and into the lake, or the misquote of Korihor from Alma) are not sensational, or even valid quotes of real arguments so-critics make against the church. No one takes those seriously - I bet you can't produce a single source for them - hearsay from a mission companion doesn't quite cut it. Those are strawman arguments invented by Mormons, to discredit critics by saying "see, these are the shallow things they say", and there's nothing sensational about them whatsoever. That's why I say Anti-Mormonism is all in Mormons' heads. Sure, times were different in the past, when "mobs" were trying to kill Mormons - sure, I'd call them Anti-Mormons, just like Hitler was Anti-Jew. But now, it seems Mormons have to make up their own persecution complex just to feel validated, and using the term "Anti-Mormon" is how they do it today. Reswobslc 14:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

None of what you said above comes close to being anti-Mormon in my mind. You don't believe that the Mormon Church is true, and that is a perfectly fine position to have. Nor is anything you said "sensational". (No surprise here.) If you think about it, every religion other than your own has beliefs that are sensational, ridiculous, preposterous, etc. And yet, there are some idiots who actual believe that stuff! Well, yes, but to them those same beliefs don't seem as bad as you think they are, and they might well consider some of your beliefs silly as well.

Sensational isn't the only criteria: we also have misleading, such as the misquote above. But "sensational" is clearly a POV evaluation. If I say something that personally attacks you, you most likely would consider it sensational, while others may not. I had a friend whose father was killed in WWII when he was very young, and if somebody called him a bastard, he would go ballistic. To him, such a statement was very sensational and emotional, but to others it was just another cuss word.

As for anti-Mormon being in our heads, I would have to disagree with you, but I can certainly understand why you don't think such things exist. Maybe you don't take it seriously, but others do. Until recently, my brother (who is a born-again Christian) would send me anti-Mormon material on a regular basis. It was seldom in printed form, and he really thought it was true. It wasn't until I had him do some research that he realized all that material was built on a shaky foundation. Now (he claims) he doesn't read that stuff any more. He still, however, claims that I am not a Christian and that we don't worship the same Jesus as he does.

It doesn't matter to me what others believe or not believe. Where I have a problem is when they try to tell me what I believe or don't believe. I have plenty of personal experiences of people trying to "save" me because of what they heard we believe. When I was first investigating the Mormon Church, a friend of mine apparently belonged to the "Anti-Mormon Book of the Month Club" because he kept giving me tons of books claiming to "reveal" what Mormons believed. In a way, they actually helped me join the church, since it was obvious that the motives of the people who produced that material wasn't Christ-like. I know of others who have had similar experiences, especially those of us who are converts. Perhaps you don't mind people saying that I'm not a Christian, but I certainly do mind. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It was over 30 years ago that I had the pleasure of reading the pamplet that described the rescue of one of Brigham Young's young wives. They claimed this poor girl jumped from off the temple into the Great Salt Lake and swam to freedom. It was a hoarrowing experience, but praise God she was now firmly in the grasp of the true gospel of Christ; she had found Jesus! Unfortunately, I did not keep such a treasure. I guess at the time I was struck with its outright stupidity rather than recognizing the humor of it.

You might take it seriously because you know better, but these are the type of outlandish claims made by so-called Christians in an attempt to warn their flock against the evil Mormons. It is not criticism, it is anti-Mormonism. When you have your own grandmother feel your head to make sure the demonic Mormons did not put horns on her grandson, then you come and tell me people don't really believe the stupidity published by other Christian groups or what their preacher says on Sunday morning. The reason I cited it was to show the depths of some types of anti-Mormon "literature" and to show there is a difference between criticism and anit-Mormon writings.

Also, you keep wanting to tell Mormons that persecution does not exist; that it is really a figment of their imagination and is really some deviant hoax perpetrated by Mormons to play victim. I appreciate your thoughts and thank you for sharing them. However, I think it best to leave it to the Mormons to identify what is anti-Mormon and what is not. For cultists to define it would be similar to having the KKK define racism. Though I have many fond relationiships with true Christians, I do not have much confidence in any group, church, or individual who would claim to be a cultist, of which there are several. I may continue to turn my cheek occaisionally, but I am weak enough not to forget the sting. You might want to spend some time talking to Mormons living in areas where they are a samll minority. I know that could enlighten you. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of "Anti-Mormon"

The following is the introduction to the article:

The word anti-Mormonism is derived from the prefix "anti-," meaning "to be in opposition to," and the adjective "Mormon," denoting anything related to Mormonism. Therefore, the adjective "anti-Mormon" typically indicates anything that is perceived to be in opposition to the teachings, history, leadership, culture of, or membership in, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Typically, though, the prefix anti- is affixed to a noun, not to an adjective. That in fact, is why so many who have been labeled "anti-Mormon" dislike the term: they assume that "Mormon" here is the noun, referring to a member of the LDS church, rather than an adjective. I think that if a reference/citation can be given for the adjectival derivation, we can include it; otherwise we should assume the more obvious nominal derivation.

CaliforniaKid 03:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Anti-Mormon literature constitute an "ism"?

From the Wikipedia article on the suffix -ism:

The -ism suffix can be used to express the following concepts

doctrine or philosophy (e.g. pacifism, olympism)

theory developed by an individual (e.g. Marxism)

political movement (e.g. feminism)

artistic movement (e.g. cubism)

action, process or practice (e.g. voyeurism)

characteristic, quality or origin (e.g. heroism)

state or condition (e.g. pauperism)

excess or disease (e.g. botulism)

prejudice or bias (e.g. racism)

characteristic speech patterns (e.g. Yogiism, Bushism)

religion or belief system (e.g. Mormonism)

Many isms are defined as an act or practice by some, while also being defined as the doctrine or philosophy behind the act or practice by others. Examples include activism, altruism, despotism, elitism, optimism, sexism and terrorism.

It could be argued that despite their differences, anti-Mormons are unified by a prejudice or bias, and so like "sexism" or "racism" constitute a coherent worldview worthy of the suffix "-ism". On the other hand, I don't see much published literature that treats it as such. A quick glance at the bibliography for this article reveals that almost all the titles referenced are about "anti-Mormons", but that only one purports to discuss "anti-Mormonism". The view that anti-Mormons constitute an "-ism" appears to be a minority view worthy of a footnote and/or a redirect and/or even a subsection, but not of an entire article. I suggest that this article be moved to the heading "anti-Mormon" and that its content be edited accordingly.

An additional reason to make this change is simple disambiguation. "Anti-Mormonism" has been suggested by some authors as an alternative to the adjective "anti-Mormon". They say, "I'm not anti-Mormon, I'm anti-Mormonism." The implication is that they oppose the belief system, not its members. In this case the suffix "ism" modifies the root word "Mormon", and the prefix "anti" modifies the full word "Mormonism". In the wikipedia article here, however, the prefix "anti" modifies the root word "Mormon", and the suffix "ism" modifies the full word "anti-Mormon".

Moving the article to the heading Anti-Mormon would avoid this ambiguity.

CaliforniaKid 05:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the phrase "anti-Mormonism", in common usage, easily refers to opposition to "Mormonism", but it is then applied as opposition to Mormons personally. Traditionally it was personal, because Mormons claimed so many special rights (polygamy, racism, and theocracy). However, fundamentalist Mormon apologists have resurrected the term "anti-Mormonism" due to the confusion, as a strategy to justify their newly imported arch-conservative positions among Mormons (which ironically are from former anti-Mormon southern traditions, and explains why they need to preface their approach with defending Mormonism first). Check out the definition offered in the lead paragraph of the article to see this switch taking place. See how the "Modern Anti-Mormonism: Exmormon" section contains mostly Christian groups, desperately in search of a class of enemies under every rock. Of course, being opposed to any -ism is a common right and a ridiculous thing to whine about, but it allows those who are skilled in selling religion to cultivate persecution for themselves--attracting those who identify persecution with righteousness. Anon166 20:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Anti-Mormon is an acceptable title for the article, but I do think there are individuals who are anti-Mormon and then there are actions and writings that are appropriately termed anti-Mormonism. People or organizations that do not hire a Mormon solely because they are Mormon are appropriately termed anti-Mormon. Literature that that contains sensationalistic language, without concern for truth are appropriately termed anti-Mormonism. These are books that tell tales of young virgins that jump out from the top-most spire of the Salt Lake temple into the Great Salt Lake to swim to freedom. The problem is that the Salt Lake is over 5 miles away. One of the more common statements is Jesus is the brother of Satan. A very sensationalized statement of true LDS doctrine, but it is one that LDS would never say; it is not a common thought process. Briefly, LDS simply would say that all were spirits before coming to this mortal world. Satan led away 1/3 of the spirits of the pre-existence and they fought against the Father and His Son, Jesus. Sounds different doesn't it. It is not only what they say, but how they say it.

I appreciate your comments California. It is very applicable to another article on WIKI...Exmormonism. If you can find any reason for that title I would like to hear it. Maybe you could also visit that page. Your assistance would be appreciated. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So, StormRider, just to clarify your view, do you believe that this article should retain its current title, should be moved, or should somehow be split in two? I'm not entirely sure what distinction you're making between the terms "anti-Mormon" and "anti-Mormonism". Are you saying that the former is a noun or adjective applied to people whereas the latter is an adjective/(noun?) applied to literature? My main concern with making "anti-Mormonism" an "ism" is that an "ism" is a coherent ideology. If this article is about an ideology, then it is less about particular anti-Mormons/anti-Mormon organizations and their acerbic rhetoric than it is about identifying a common set of beliefs/convictions held by all anti-Mormons. I don't think anti-Mormons are a monolithic group; some may be atheists, some may be evangelicals, and some may be something else entirely. To treat them as adherents of a singular ideology seems misplaced. CaliforniaKid 07:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall hearing the term "Anti-Mormonism" other than in this article. Normally, you hear "Anti-Mormon", as in "Anti-Mormon Literature", "that is Anti-Mormon", etc. The term can be applied equally to literature or people. I don't mind the current title, but think "Anti-Mormon" would be better. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 09:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Although you (StormRider) believe there are individuals who are Anti-Mormon, there are virtually none who self-identify as such. "Anti-Mormons" is a scapegoat term made up by Mormons to refer to anyone who opposes Mormonism. I bet you can't provide a reference to a single book that mentions Mormon virgins jumping off the temple to support your claim. Nor can you mention a single present or former "anti-mormon" organization that refuses to hire Mormons (particularly because such discrimination is brazenly illegal in the US). Also, Exmormonism was recently renamed to Ex-Mormons - a move I support (though I might have suggested Ex-Mormon in the singular, instead). Anti-Mormon would be an excellent name, but it would probably be best described as a term Mormons use to label people, rather than the identity of people who self-identify as such, because there are none. Reswobslc 09:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I understand your POV, I question its validity. How many people do you know that would say, "I am a bigot", "I am a sexist", or "I am racist"? Individuals who do bad things rarely are so self-aware or honest that they are willing to label their actionsl, speech, etc. for what they are.

I had the pleasure of growing up in the south. I could not get a job in town as a young person because of my religion. My sister, this year, was not able to coach girls softball regardless of her excellent ability because she is LDS. That was the reason she was given. Last year, in the same town, a longtime family friend's grandson was identified as getting too popular in the eyes of sevaral Southern Baptists at the First Baptist church. The reaction was to publically identify the young man and that he was no acceptable for Baptist children as a friend.

Next time you begin to ask what is racist, don't ask a white person; ask a black person. The next time you want to know about anti-Mormons, ask a Mormon who lives in a location where they are the definite minority. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I understand what you're trying to say, I question your need to say it (which mostly agrees with my position). First, I agree with you as to whether the article should be moved to Anti-Mormon, and I also agree with you when you say racists and sexists don't self-identify either. So there is little need to blast me, and make personal attack statements about how I have my head in the sand, etc. You just made a lot of other implausible generalizations about so-called Anti-Mormons (i.e. how they write without regard for the truth, or how there exists individuals who "are" Anti-Mormon... the definition of being an Anti-Mormon being totally subjective). Unless there's a group of people who self-identify as Anti-Mormons, then Anti-Mormons come from all walks of life... some who care about truth, others who don't, some who self-identify as "Ex-Mormon", some who self-identify as a member of a competing congregation, and the occasional nut, who for one reason or another, says "Yup, I'm Anti-Mormon". For you to label Anti-Mormons with any specific attribute or motivation would be like me saying all racists are white, or all sexists are male. Regardless of this off-topic tangent that's having less and less to do with anything remotely Mormon, let's cut the WP:NPA and agree that the article should be moved as proposed. Reswobslc 21:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that I am back feeding the troll. Some of us, me, are so stupid that we eventually think logic and facts will be heard. First, we were discussing the reality and existence of anti-Mormons. Second, you attempted to use the logic that becuase no one self-identifies as anti-Mormon, they don't exist except in as a figment int he imaginations of Mormons. It was obviously a spurrious argument.

A legitimate critic of Mormonism seeks to simply criticize, not defame. The true critic's feet are firmly placed upon facts. They do not seek to distort history, truth, facts, or ignore the same. Anti-Mormons and their actions are wholly different. They do ignore facts, distort history, and seek to defame, destroy, etc. That is the whole purpose of the this article. Don't attempt to confuse the two and don't think that critcism and anti-Mormon behavior are the same.

Some Mormons do confuse the two issues and will call anything that casts a negative light on the LDS church as anti-Mormon. They will reject anything that is not "faith-promoting" as anti-Mormon. This is an unfortunate occurrance that will only change with education. This article should inform Mormons as well as others about the nature of true anti-Mormons and their behavior.

Also, quit trying to paint everything that disagrees with your position as a personal attack. No personal attack has taken place. Further, do not try to state what I believe or think. You are not privy to either my beliefs or thoughts. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Another RFC Response

I echo Alecmconroy's point above that the article needs to decide what it is about. At least two of the participants above have said that it is about the term rather than the point of view. I read one of the other participants above as disagreeing, but not in a way that is clearly stated. As the discussion seems to be leaning toward having the article be about the term, I'll be more specific about what should be done to the content to fit that intent.

As an article about the term, the focus should always be on explaining the term. Examples should be used selectively to illustrate points. It should not be necessary to illustrate any point with more than two or three examples, probably only one discussed in any depth. Given the policy on verifiability, the examples used should be only ones where a citation to a secondary literature can be made to support their use as an illustration. (More specifically, a citation not just to a source labeling them as anti-mormon but to a source being specific about how they are anti-mormon.) The lists of early books, modern books, and websites should disappear as lists.

The section entitled "History" should stand except for the list mentioned above (possibly being tweaked). Most of the "Modern anti-Mormonism" section needs to be rewritten. None of the "Christian groups" sub-section is about the term. The "Exmormons" section needs a major rewrite; none of the material on the Tanners is about the term or even looks rewritable to be about the term, the material on Decker is written about him rather than about the term but shows evidence that his work probabyl could be used as an example for discussion about the term, and the Other bit also needs a rewrite but shows promise. As discussed above, the "Modern books" and "Websites" lists need to disappear.

The "Views of anti-Mormonism" section should also be refocused to be about the term. Some of the content will need to go, such as the Gordon B. Hinckley paragraph that adds nothing to a discussion of the term. In general the "Views of Latter-day Saints" subsection is in better shape for this intent than the "Official views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" section.

All of the above is about reworking the article to be about the term. Also, based on the way the "Views of anti-Mormonism" is worded currently, especially the quote that uses the term, it appears that the term is actually "anti-Mormon" instead of "anti-Mormonism". This should be checked in the literature, and if the literature normally uses "anti-Mormon" instead of "anti-Mormonism" then the article should be moved to the proper title. If not, then the article should be reworked to use the form "anti-Mormonism" consistently, except when a quote uses the other form. GRBerry 13:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said previously, limiting the content to being "about the term" would include how the term is used, by whom it is used, what it usually means, what is thought about the term and its use, etc. The material you suggest for removal seems to fit within this scope. The lists, for example, are a means of showing exactly what the term is used to describe.

I'm sure wording could be improved (in which case, have at it), but I don't think the scope is as constrained as you suggest. --uriah923^(talk) 23:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The lists are, for an encyclopedia article, a very poor way of showing what the term is meant to describe. I probably worded this poorly above, but the intent of having them disappear as lists was to have these items, or superior replacements, become the illustrations used in prose paragraphs to illustrate points about what anti-Mormon is. To a generalist audience, which the Wikipedia reader should be assumed to be, titles of texts they are unlikely to have encountered don't illustrate the term. In all three lists, we have two links to Wikipedia articles: A Study in Scarlet and No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith. The former result shows no evidence as to why it is viewed as anti-Mormon, the latter is a two sentence stub, that if anything illustrates the term anti-Mormon as meaning "not a pro-Mormon hagiography", which is a much weaker definition of the term than the article uses. Whatever the intent of the lists, they do not function to illustrate the term to the general reader. To achieve this purpose, they need to become prose illustrations, such as "The book No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith was the first biography of Joesph Smith by a non-Mormon, and was viewed as anti-Mormon because ..." completing the sentence(s) with whatever were the reasons it was viewed as anti-Mormon, which reasons should be verifiable from reliable sources. (And to take myself as an example, I recognized none of the books, and only one of the websites of which I have only vague memories of what it looked like about six years ago, not enough to learn anything from its inclusion.) GRBerry 02:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point. What is the use of lists like the ones in the article? Readers who are critical of Mormonism will use them as lists of resources with which to bash Mormons. Mormons will use them as a blacklist of books to avoid. It seems that it would be better (more encyclopedic) if the "examples" were used in prose to illustrate a point. CaliforniaKid 04:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying now, and I agree that using the examples in prose is a much better way to go. --uriah923^(talk) 22:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my position, "anti-Mormon" is what opposes Mormons as individual people in their practice or affiliation. Anti-Mormonism is what critically opposes them in doctrine or theory (which is never illegal for either side). Obviously the former is controversial, even when legally and morally justified in the early days of Mormon theocracy, polygamy, and later as a lone institutional racism. However, IF the two approaches are modernly confused or conflated, then a Mormon apologist can pretend that anyone opposing them in doctrine is also opposing them as people (such as racism). One problem is that this conflation seemingly disputes or ignores the modern benefits of dropping polygamy, theocracy and racism to achieve this bait and switch (ie, fundamentalism). It's also a powerful way to leverage the freedom of speech to end a debate started by the proselyting party. My fear is that Wikipedia is exploited to this end. A Mormon can point any critic referencing scholarly material to this article to imply that their criticism, and material, is morally unjust, even while on the critic's own doorstep. Anon166 21:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Anon166, your edits seem to have a common theme of including criticisms of the LDS church. You appear to mention theocracy, polygamy, and racism at any and all points possible. I think these are distractions from the topic at hand, and it would serve everyone better if you would stay on-topic and leave implied agendas out of the article. (I'm sure you won't agree with this, and it's possible that I've misjudged you, so just take my comment for what it's worth. There's no need to get into a big discussion.) --uriah923^(talk) 17:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That is precisely the reason I think the article should be moved. Many people do make a distinction between being "anti-Mormon" and "anti-Mormonism", just like you do. That's part of the controversy that surrounds the term. The article as it stands, however, does not acknowledge this distinction; it conflates the two terms and treats them as synonymous. It is mostly about the term "anti-Mormon", and in fact that is the more common term ("anti-Mormonism" has been suggested as an alternative in some circles, but hasn't caught on, mostly because it is long and grammatically awkward). I recommend that we move the article to the heading "Anti-Mormons", make a clear distinction between the terms, and focus largely on the controversy generated by the (unwarranted?) application of the term "anti-Mormon" to groups and agencies that oppose the Mormon belief system, but who claim to love Mormon people. CaliforniaKid 00:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote to move article to Anti-Mormon

Can we at least get a consensus on moving the article to the new heading? All in favor, please put "support" below. If not in favor, please put "reject" and explain why. If everyone seems to support the suggestion, we will move the article. CaliforniaKid 04:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support — Anti-Mormon is the more common term. Personally, I tend to use it relative to material more than people, but can see both uses. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 12:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's obvious that I support, but I'll say so anyway. CaliforniaKid 17:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support — I use the term "Anti-Mormon" more, but I don't know that makes is automatically the better encyclopedia article heading. In any case, I'm not opposed to the idea of moving. --uriah923^(talk) 22:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support for reasons above. Article needs to address specific opposition to Mormon practices well beyond the early blunders of failed banking and bloc voting. To quote from scholarly source regarding the Smoot Hearings: The four-year Senate proceeding created a 3,500-page record of testimony by 100 witnesses on every peculiarity of Mormonism, especially its polygamous family structure, ritual worship practices, "secret oaths," open canon, economic communalism, and theocratic politics.[10] The public participated actively in the proceedings. In the Capitol, spectators lined the halls, waiting for limited seats in the committee room, and filled the galleries to hear floor debates. For those who could not see for themselves, journalists and cartoonists depicted each day's admission and outrage. At the height of the hearing some senators were receiving a thousand letters a day from angry constituents. What remains of these public petitions fills eleven feet of shelf space, the largest such collection in the National Archives. [7] Anon166 23:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support; I still think both terms are legitimate depending upon context of the discussion. It would be easy to delineate and address the differences within the article. The title change leaves me abivalent. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support Anti-Mormonism isn't an ism or even a word used by Mormons or anyone else. The word is anti-Mormon. Reswobslc 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, "anti-Mormonism" is somtimes used, as evident in this Washington Monthly article. Not by a Mormon, and in a very public and professional setting. I'm not saying I change my vote; I just thought you should be informed. --uriah923^(talk) 21:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I requested a page move (the redirect has an edit history, so I can't move to page myself) to Anti-Mormon. The singular noun is in accordance with Wikipedia: Naming Conventions. CaliforniaKid 18:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am curious what you did to do that. Agreeing iwth you, I simply tagged Anti-Mormon for speedy delete using Template:db-move. Is there another way? Only curious for my personal education. Reswobslc 21:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't know you could do that. I went to Wikipedia:Requested Moves and added it to a badly backlogged list of stuff for bored admins to do. lol. CaliforniaKid 22:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

It looks like there's a dispute over the introduction. Anon166 made this change, which I changed to this. Anon166 reverted back to his version, citing "Mormon POV." I disagree, and actually think Anon166's version carries much more bias. What does everyone else think? --uriah923^(talk) 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I prefer your version. And lest I be accused of Mormon POV, I am not a Mormon. CaliforniaKid 20:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The two paragraphs are pompously redundant with or without POV. By the way, why don't you remove the amateurish fluff piece Hinckley quotes, if that was your criticism, lest I be accused of being anti-Mormon again. Anon166 18:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone refer to a person as anti-mormon, but I suppose some do. Most LDS I know reserve the term anti-mormon to what they feel are dishonest claims. While one can find some Mormons who use a more inclusive definition, I think they are in the minority. Maybe it is more prominent in places like Utah, but the people I know use a more restrictive definition. I feel the introduction should make this distinction clear, which is why I added words like "sometimes" and "especially". wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 22:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Move

Its's been done. There are now 123 redirects and you will need to take care of those. Go to here for the list. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Most are done. Criticism of Islam is protected. I didn't touch any talk pages wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

From lists to prose

I think everyone agrees that the lists should be moved to examples-in-prose. I know of a good one to start with from Faun Brodie's biography of Joseph Smith, so I'll work that in. Let me know what you think after it's done. --uriah923^(talk) 23:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the point was to turn the list into a list of paragraphs. Brodie is always the target of Mormon apologists, and the target of your list, because you can't refute her, and she's a woman with a Ph.D. in History with a Mormon pedigree. Anon166 16:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See No, Ma'am, That's Not History - reading and properly reporting on what you reference is an important virtue of most historians

for example, "This writer has pointed out that the Reverend Caswall published not only one but no fewer than six conflicting versions of his famous interview with Joseph Smith. It is a moot question whether it is more reprehensible for a biographer to be ignorant of such a vital and readily accessible fact as this, or to conceal it if he knows of it. Mrs. Brodie cites as her source for the story Caswall's earliest version, that of 1842, while the tale she actually tells is the elaborately revamped version of 1851, to which she adds important touches of her own not to be found in any of Caswall's accounts. A little of her vaunted "primary research" could have shown Mrs. Brodie that while Caswall's Psalter trick was carefully prepared in advance, the interview with the Prophet never took place." --Trödel 21:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"This writer" being Nibley, who is an apologist and sorely discredited on all things Mormon and Egyptian, seeming to whine here about not being mentioned for his research. Caswall, as we all know, reported that Smith claimed a Psalter was an ancient document nobody but he could read. Caswall's story changed six times and Brodie never mentioned it? That's doesn't discredit her at all. What other famous story in Mormonism changed six times that Nibley personally believes in? [8] Anon166 16:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It does discredit her scholarship to refer to a specific version but use quotes from another version - to ignore the discrepencies rather than to disclose them. As I said - her supposed scholarship work is not viewed as credible by any serious historians - and the first complaints started with nibley's review - and were followed up by many others --Trödel 06:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I can and have refuted her (in one very specific instance, at least). See the article I authored on the 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith, Jr: http://www.omninerd.com/2006/06/11/articles/55. It's obvious that there is much more to the story than what Brodie presents. In any case, I don't want to turn it into a list of paragraphs, either, but want to use examples like these to show exactly what it is that people consider anti-Mormon. That's what this article is about, after all. --uriah923^(talk) 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So Brodie wasn't wrong, just incomplete? You must decide if she wrote too little or too much before anyone takes you seriously. Anon166 16:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just be careful. This article is not about what we think of a particular book or article or author, but about what methods or language the author uses that have been specifically identified by Mormon publications as "anti-Mormon". It would also be helpful to include mention of any rationale that is given for the designation, and to tie this into the bigger picture. For example, if I am going to write a section on authors who define "anti-Mormon" literature as anything that makes sensational claims against the LDS church, I might mention some critiques of Brodie that call her anti-Mormon because they say she makes sensational claims. CaliforniaKid 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does matter how we evaluate a particular book or article according to established criteria. A reliable source is required and we need to make decisions on whether things are reliable or not: According to WP:RS:

Issues to look out

• Have the secondary sources used multiple independent primary sources?
• Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org, Al-Qaeda, or the British Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only, i.e. as sources about themselves and their own activities or viewpoints, and even then with caution and sparingly. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources.
• Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable.
• Find out what other people say about your sources.
• Have the sources reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.
• Are they available to other editors to check? We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle. If not, inclusion is probably not appropriate. Note, however, that they need not be online; availability through a library is sufficient.

And how does Brodie compare:

• not really - relies on primary sources that are not independent
• Yes - a very clearly defined agenda
• No
• Not respected - see Jan Shipps amongst many ohters
• No - they don't even quote thier own references correctly - see Nibley comment above
• Yes, in general - but the source checking has not verified her allegations.

Brodie is not a reliable source --Trödel 02:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, CaliforniaKid was correct above. Were Wikipedia editors to decide that a source is not reliable and therefore include it here, that decision and inclusion would be original research, banned by Wikipedia:No Original Research. Such inclusions should be deleted on sight. What you need to do is find published, reliable sources that already say something is anti-mormon, and cite the reasons those published sources give for describing it as anti-mormon. GRBerry 03:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense - have a policy to use reliable sources, but if they are not reliable the must be mentioned anyway - that makes no sense. There is a difference between editorial judgment - what to include not include; and original research - writing an essay on the topic

However, Brodie should be mentioned on this page - as there are reliable sources that have labeled her work as anti-mormon - I am not speaking to that. What I am responding to is the allegation by Anon166 - that Brodie is problematic because she can not be refuted - which is plain poppycock --Trödel 03:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

PS Here is an example of original research: using Anon166's comments about Brodie as an example in an article. Or referencing my label of her as anti-Mormon. Both are much different than deciding not to use Brodie as a reference on the Joseph Smith, Jr. article. --Trödel 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we're missing the point, here. What we want is some quotes from Brodie's book demonstrating what sort of things Mormons might label as "anti-Mormon". What this requires isn't that Brodie's book be considered a reliable source—what it requires is that we find some other source quoting Brodie, giving an example of something inflammatory/inaccurate/sensational. That other source must be reliable—we can't just say, "Trödel (or Dlugar) thinks this quote from Brodie is sensationalized, so that's why we're listing it here."

We must also be careful not to use this as a page for discussing the criticisms of Mormonism. Observe the difference between:

In the book "No Man Knows My History," Fawn Brodie states that Joseph Smith used an occult talisman to translate the Book of Mormon. This is a sensationalized claim—Joseph Smith actually used biblical instruments called "urim" and "thummim" to translate the Book of Mormon.

compared to:

In the book "No Man Knows My History," Fawn Brodie states that Joseph Smith used an occult talisman to translate the Book of Mormon. John Q. Sorenson writes, "Joseph Smith actually used biblical instruments called 'urim' and 'thummim' to translate the Book of Mormon," which is why he labels the book as "anti-Mormon".

(Obviously these examples are fake and not that well-written, but hopefully it gets across the direction I'm thinking of going.) The concentration is on (a) the claim made by the book, and (b) a reliable source labeling the book as anti-Mormon and explaining a specific instance as to why. That way we're not claiming that the rebuttal (or the original claim) is factual, we're using it to show why someone has labeled the book anti-Mormon.

I'm still not certain that following this path will result in better information for the reader (Mormon and non-Mormon alike), but if you don't want to move the massive lists to "Criticism of Mormonism" or a similar place, I see this as being our best alternative. Ideas? --Dlugar 15:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Urim and Thummin is the sensational claim here, regardless of perspective. The tools Joseph Smith used to "translate" anything were well understood at the time to be rocks with holes in them, inscribed with Jupiter notations, with a stovepipe hat to peer into. This is painstakingly catalogued by D. Michael Quinn and others, originally revealed to Mormons by Reed Durham I believe. Mormon counter-claims are often afterthought corrections. A professional historian cannot be libeled by Wikipedia because she dares be correct. Any reference to Brodie being anti- would need a balance to suggest that such critics are wrong in their claims. That balance is what will be deleted by the apologist cabal here. See this excerpt from someone who also read the book and claims to be LDS:

So what objective truths show that Quinn is correct about early Mormonism and the magic world view?

1. Joseph used "seer stones" or "peep-stones" well before the urim and thumim came along, and he hunted for treasure. It was not a reluctant one time venture, it was a part of who he was, and involved most of his family. He a number of different stones, and used them while translating the Book of Mormon.

2. His treasure hunting included many rituals out of occult books, and this was common during his time. This is confirmed by many statements of early church leaders including Brigham Young, Porter Rockwall, Martin Harris, etc.

3. Oliver Cowdry used divining rods, and believed he could receive revelation through them, as did Joseph's father.

4. The Smiths had visions, and dreams, and believed in interpreting them. These pre-dated the formation of the church.

5. The early church was almost Pentecostal in a sense. People spoke in tongues, had visions, believed in regular interaction with spirits on the other-side, and had a world-view that was mystic. This continued until the first generation of mormons died in Utah. Many of the early saints had revival like meetings, including while crossing the plains.

These objective facts do not mean the Joseph was not a prophet, anymore than his many polygamous marriages, which is also not divulged by the church, mean he was not a prophet. Truth is truth, and hiding it is only more damaging to members who discover these things bare, never having heard of them before.[9] Anon166 16:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The topic of the article is Anti-Mormon and not why there is no such thing as an anti-Mormon. It is easily documented that Joseph initally used the Urim and Thummim. He latter used a seer stone (peep stone being the term often used in anti-Mormon literature; an example of taking facts and twisting them to sound as nefarious as possible). Eventually he used nothing at all and simply translated the plates while a scribe copied his words.

I have not a clue about the significance of the rest of the information or how it applies to the topic. Many BYU scholars have researched and documented Joseph Smith's marriages so the claim that it is not divulged is dishonest. Anyone interested in reading church history can do so. I would also assume that Mormons read the internet which has a plethora of sites desparate to reveal the "truth" about Mormon doctrine and history. It is true that the marriages of Brigham Young have more stories related in church. I suspect because these marriages were obvious that they lived as husband and wife, which is unlike Joseph's marriages. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The topic is about anti-Mormon indeed. So, if you did a topic on Bigfoot, you would thus assume it as real? What this boils down to is simply that apologists and their certain-absolute-fundamentalist mindset has PREDETERMINED that objective facts cannot contradict their modern worldview without being labeled anti-Mormon, even when such facts are true. We're speaking of thought reform and propaganda here. The subject, anti-Mormon, should also be describing the apologist phenomenon that leads Mormons to believe that knowing or learning historical truths is morally wrong, or has anything to do with being anti-Mormon. I think that all of the apologists here are personally engaged in defense of their own belief system by reinventing the term to apply to the information/internet era. Anon166 20:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are mistaken. What is really going on is plain, old mind control. Over 12 million people world wide with tens of thousands of new saps joining every year being controled by 15 nearly ancient men in Utah. Each of them thoroughly devoid of individual thought or logic. Though they live in their own homes, become eductated, and work professionally; those old codgers have figured out a way to implement complete control of each of them. Gosh, I am glad the world has people like you who can really identify true facts from those troublesome lies taught by Mormons. All we need to do is ignore everything printed by anyone who has anything to do with Mormonism, seek out information only from those who state anything negative and viola, we have the truth. I am in awe! True enlightenment at last. Thank you. Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most converts are illiterate. This was admitted by Mormon demographers. 40% of Brazilian missionaries can't even read the Book of Mormon, according to the anti-Mormon liberal media. I don't mind addressing these concerns as you raise the issues, just don't whine to me afterwards. Anon166 02:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is getting very off topic, but at least we have a good first-hand example what many consider anti-Mormon. Personally, I think I'd agree in this case for three reasons. First, the claims have no support in primary sources - they are simply regurgitated from others. Second, there is an insinuation that anyone who doesn't believe the claims is blinded by propaganda and brain-washing. Third, everything is listed with sensationalized language - far from the objectiveness of respectable scholarship. (And before anyone accuses me of using the same methods, I think my work speaks for itself: http://www.omninerd.com/2006/06/11/articles/55.) --uriah923^(talk) 23:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what is disturbing here is that you are quoting yourself as "what Mormons believe to be antiMormon" and then declare it to be therefore true. It coudn't be much weirder to someone with NPOV. Anon166 00:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I don't think anything I wrote is anti-Mormon, and I didn't quote myself ... --uriah923^(talk) 00:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-Mormon" is not a fact, it is a phenomenon of belief. Some have pointed out that this phenomenon is from unprepared and naive Mormons finding historical facts that are suppressed in Mormon culture. So, rather than be honest and address the issue and move towards reconciliation with knowledge (a religious progress), they react negatively and regress, circling the wagons, as if they think they must protect Mormons as helpless children. Their best method is to suppress the danger openly--using "anti-Mormon" as their weapon (hinting that such material is a personal or ethnic opposition, and by denying that most opposition was from Mormon barbarisms themselves). This reaction is the fundamentalist act of dragging the holy past into the "vile" present, well documented in books about fundamentalism. This then becomes the pathology of "anti-Mormon" (pathology because it is labeled a spiritual disease). But modernly it is an imaginary disease that doesn't really exist outside of a religious literalism that must prove their faults to be pure instead. It is due to the anti-scholarly assumption that those facts can't be true and be consistent with faith. So, what we have then is a war of polemics against the known facts and usurping religious progress with a childish regression. While non-Mormon scholars embrace Brodie, and Quinn, Durham, Hill and Bringhurst and other Mormon historians confirm the factual sincerity of Brodie, the term "anti-Mormon" is then used to suppress Brodie, and anything else like it, to prevent any more dangerous thoughts. This "tag" is achieved simply by citing judgmental ad hominem and repeating it over and over, as if they represent God. How does this relate to this article? The term "anti-Mormon" is wrongly justified here as "what Mormons believe to be anti-Mormon" when this is merely quoting apologetical suppression, because most Mormons haven't read Brodie and most have no opinion of it. It is thus a circular sham, confusing even to the wannabe apologist. Some of them actually know they are suppressing information (out of frustration to refute it), while others follow suit, finding little other value in spiritual matters except as defenders of a literalism. It is not much different in any debates about evolution, environmentalism, democracy or feminism. Anon166 01:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You are an ideal example of an anti-Mormon. You are incapable of any positive statements about Mormonism, your mind is so closed that you are incapable of any discussion because you think you already know "the truth", and when in doubt you begin by making accusations. I am glad you are here; I relish in your comments. You make it easy for any Mormon to demonstrate the reality of an anti-Mormon. Please continue. However, we have gone far enough afield and you have made your position perfectly clear. I am sorry that the article exists. I am sorry that those bad, dirty, Mormons exist and that they dream up such hairbrained ideas, I am sorry that their children are persecuted for their beliefs, I am sorry that good people like yourself have to be bothered by those that are so facile they are without your level of intellect, but such is life. Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Stormrider, I'm not a convert like you and have nothing to prove. My ancestors invented it. Anon166 02:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Friend, you think to add credibility because your ancestors "invented" it. So by "invent" you mean to claim you are the offspring of Joseph Smith? Unfortunately, our family tree goes back to 1832 when several of our ancestors joined the church in New York. I was baptized when I was 8 much like many other children. My conversion process is the result of many years of study, reflection, and prayer. I do not know anyone who is not a convert to the gospel of Christ.

You would also be incorrect; I personally have nothing to prove. My ancestors stand on their own two feet just as each of us must. Their early participation in the restored gospel does not earn me any brownie points; however, it does provide some fascinating stories. I am not your run-of-the-mill LDS; I do not follow blindly, but rather am a student of truth. If there is truth I will support it. If there are lies I will admit them for what they are. I critique what I feel is wrong in the church as much as I admire the truths taught by other Christian churches and in other religions. Where we differ is I try to seek for the good in all things. You seem to seek the bad. If you are happy, continue; if you are not, change. I am not trying to offend you, but you really are a sour person with whom to work. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It never occurred to me to convert to my birthright. That was for converts. Anon166 04:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't mean to start a big discussion on urim and thummim and peep stones. I (foolishly, perhaps) thought it was a harmless enough example, intended to provoke thoughts on what I see as the possibilities for these massive lists:

1. Leave them as-is; the criterion for inclusion is that a reliable source called it anti-Mormon
2. Move them to "Criticism of Mormonism" and create a link along the lines of, "For a list of books and web sites that some have labeled anti-Mormon, click here"
3. Get rid of the large lists altogether and replace them with carefully-chosen quotes from "anti-Mormon" books, illustrating the sensationalized nature of the quotes; requirement here is a reliable source that calls the quote in question "sensationalized", "misleading", "incorrect", etc.

The problem with the first has been pointed out by the several RFCers. The problem with the second is that it would be nice to make a distinction between books that are simply critical of Mormonism versus those that contain inflammatory or inaccurate claims, and therefore are more frequently labeled "anti-Mormon". The problem with the last is that (a) I think we'll have a difficult time finding illustrative quotes, (b) I think we'll have an even more difficult time finding reliable sources that address the illustrative quote, and (c) I think there is a huge likelihood of such an endeavor boiling down to such off-topic debates as has been illustrated above with my urim/thummim/talisman example. I, obviously, favor the second choice—does anyone favor the third, or do the other editors primarily favor the first? (Or some option I haven't enumerated?) --Dlugar 02:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dlugar wrote: The problem with the last is that (a) I think we'll have a difficult time finding illustrative quotes, (b) I think we'll have an even more difficult time finding reliable sources that address the illustrative quote... I would agree, but apparently it is not a popular realization. Anon166 02:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dlugar - your second example is exactly what is needed. X says Y. A says Y is a sensational description and it really is B, thus A labels X. We are sticking to reporting facts - it is a fact that X says Y. It is a fact that A says Y is sensationalistic. We do not say Y is true, nor do we say B is true - but only that people have made the claim - that is neutral. --Trödel 06:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Self pomotion in article

Am I correct in stating that an editor here was citing their own original research from the internet in the Brodie section? Anon166 16:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so - other editors included that reference (if I remember correctly) --Trödel 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the article and also included it. I did not realize that it qualified as "original research." If that is the case, my apologies. --uriah923^(talk) 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Then again, the note was removed and then replaced by another editor, so even if my previous actions could be called "self-promotion," the current state of the article does not contain any such thing. --uriah923^(talk) 19:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll look for another article - if I can't find it then I think we should get a consensus on whether it is reliable - if it comes to that perhaps me, Anon166, and, of course, Uriah923 should refrain from the discussions as our views are already well known. Note that there are several wikipedians who have also been referenced on wikipedia, so this is not that unusual - just initial newcomer issue --Trödel 20:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My views are known? Uriah organized the Mormon editing committee. Uriah wrote the description in question about Brodie, over objections by others concerning original research. Uriah then included his own research for a citation. Uriah then cited your reversion as claiming it now belongs. My view is that this is beyond simple arrogance. Anon166 20:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why Trödel said all three of our opinions should be excluded. (And I don't know what arrogance has to do with anything ... If an objective consensus doesn't think the article is reliable, then I don't have a problem with it.) --uriah923^(talk) 20:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not even debatable, even with a rubber stamp committee:WP:OR I would add that your self-published research was an internet post that appears to quote Wikipedia about antiMormons, perhaps from this article (according to the unfavorable replies that suspect your motives). Anon166 00:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not my debate, since it's my work, but you are completely wrong on all accounts. The article is not self-published and it does not quote Wikipedia in any even remote fashion. As far as unfavorable replies, I have no idea what a debate over the article has to do with anything. --uriah923^(talk) 02:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated to your original research, I notice that your talk page[10] has relevant complaints related to you linkspamming Omninerd (ON) and they seem to freely call it your site, without protest it seems. You could always explain Omninerd, but that would imply non-reputable. Anon166 03:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't even go there. Much like your anti-Mormon claims, you are just citing whatever you can find that is negative without doing the objective work necessary to determine if it's correct. I'm confident enough to let my work (and the site that published it) speak for themselves, so I'm done with this conversation. Can you do the same? --uriah923^(talk) 03:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be investigated. The edits are so blatantly self-serving to a religious POV that I've smelled a hoax mentality for weeks now. Anon166 03:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And it is exactly that information that would help editors decide whethor or not the Uriah's article meets the standards for a reliable, verifiable source. Since it is published elsewhere it is clearly not original research - see conflicts of interest, Jimbo's comments on PR firms, and paid editing (of course you probably don't consider me independent - which is why I offered to withdraw). My main concern is that you seem to have little confidence in letting wikipedians decide, while overstating the support for your own view - who are the "others" that objectedto using Brodie as an example of Anti-Mormon literature besides you? I can find plenty of documentation that those who use the Anti-Mormon term apply it to brodie as well - and that is all we need to include the fact that X said Y. --Trödel 01:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is self-published, same as one's own blog. WP:OR If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Wikipedia can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes. Anon166 02:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

<— I am not sure what your point is - I sometimes wonder if you are being contrary for its own sake. Let me recap why - 1) Uriah posted a source, 2) it was removed, 3) I put it back as a source, 4) Uriah claimed the source as his work (OR), so 5) I proposed that we find an alternative source, but if we couldn't find one, seek consensus on whether Uriah's work should be used. That is following the policy - the only difference being that I proposed we seek concensus amongst the other editors before Uriah could (He being not fully aware of how the policy worked, and I thinking it didn't matter who proposed it, knew that we needed an impartial concensus from the articles editors to include it.

Now the material needs to be evaluted - the other editors didn't publish it so for them it is not original research - but instead needs to be evaluated on whether it is verifiable and reliable. The issue of being original research is now moot since the researcher is no longer involved in making the decision. I also offered to withdraw from discussion if you would do the same since it is clear that you oppose the inclusion no matter what, and, you think, I would support the inclusion no matter what (though I disagree about that characterization of my position).

So I am sitting wondering exactly why you keep arguing that it is disqualified as OR as if that has somehow determinative of theissue, rather than the decision to include it or not being the providence of the other editors of this article. That it is Uriah's OR has been swiftly admitted to - and a correction offered. However, it is not the collective OR of the editors here --Trödel 02:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Trodel wrote: The other editors didn't publish it, so for them it isn't original research. You seem to have your own definition of what publish means here. See WP:V and note the policy in a nutshell, and the bold emphasis: ...that have already been published by reputable publishers. Also explained here: WP:RS. This reveals why you think Mormon church sources are NPOV compliant for identifying antiMormons. Anon166 03:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what the disagreement is - it is exactly these verifiable and reliable standards that need to be applied to the proposed reference. As I said above:

• "...if I can't find it then I think we should get a consensus on whether it is reliable ... " --Trödel 20:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• "And it is exactly that information that would help editors decide whethor or not the Uriah's article meets the standards for a reliable, verifiable source." --Trödel 01:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• "...but instead needs to be evaluated on whether it is verifiable and reliable." --Trödel 02:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The last one is particularly confusing because you quote me, but somehow missed the subsequent phrase in the same sentence: "The other editors didn't publish it, so for them it isn't original research - but instead needs to be evaluated on whether it is verifiable and reliable."

I have never said that I think Uriah's source meets those standards, what I did do is assume good faith that the reference put in by another editor was reliable (as I am annoyed when people remove references from articles). Now that it's reliability has been challenged, I would normally review it to form my own view. However, given our acrimonious discussion here, I offered to withrdraw from the conversation and let the other editors decide.

Let me say it clearly for the 4th time in less than a day: The editors of this article need to reach consensus on whether the article The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith, Jr.(www.omninerd.com/2006/06/11/articles/55) is reliable and verifiable. Wikipedia editor "Uriah923" has identified the article as written by him. Uriah923 is also one of the 5 administrators/moderators of the site it is published on, Omninerd. FYI, Omninerd was blacklisted as a site using wikipedia for search engine optimization as of March 1st, 2006. --Trödel 11:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

While the article is clearly not neutral, it is as comprehensive and accurate as any of the serious scholarly literature I have read on the subject. I don't have any problem using it as a source, though for the sake of professionalism and due to suspicion of self-promotion it might be better to draw from professional, published sources. Marvin S. Hill and Michael Marquardt, both well-renowned scholars from opposite sides of the fence, have written fairly extemsively on the subject and might serve as alternative sources. Unfortunately I haven't time to go do it myself. CaliforniaKid 22:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

POV title

"Anti-Mormon" sounds dismissive and POV. This could be split into a partial merge with Criticism of Mormonism and a new "Persecution of Mormons". Or, it could be retitled "Opposition to Mormonism" and have the Criticism article merged in. The content is focused too much on the label "anti-Mormon" right now, rather than the more interesting facts about what people have done and said. -- Beland 01:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

However, "Anti-Mormon" is the standard term used for such material. At a minimum, it would require a redirect from Anti-Mormon to whatever new title was picked. And, since the new term would be made up, I wonder if it would be worth it. The topic of Anti-Mormon is definitely POV, just like Anti-Semitic is POV. But, the terms are accepted and widely used (and at least one group thinks they exist), so it seems to me that they should be used.

Clearly, what a Jew perceives as Anti-Semitic is probably broader than what a Christian or a Muslim might consider Anti-Semitic. Which standard should you use? The same is true of Anti-Mormon. Non-Mormons might consider Mormons as thin-skinned at times, but you can't really ignore the fact that they are offended by certain things. It should also be recognized that I can consider something as anti-mormon, but not be overly upset over it (and in some cases, consider it funny), but there are other things that I can get very upset over.

Personally, I tried to include examples of Anti-Mormon claims, but they got deleted over time. One reason is that it is difficult to document / create references since many of the claims are ephemeral ("I heard that Mormons do/have/are ...") wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 12:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't have an article called "Anti-Semitic"; we have "Anti-Semitism". Certainly that's a common enough term for anti-Jewish prejudice. Notably, we don't have an article called "anti-Jew" nor "anti-Jewish". Though my in-laws are a mix of Mormons and ex-Mormons, I interpret "anti-Mormon" ambiguously. One meaning is a generic orientation, like "anti-democratic" or "anti-war", and another is "anti-Mormon prejudice". I think the connotations of the first meaning is part of what makes the title leave a bad taste. If you want this article to be about "anti-Mormon prejudice", then I think that would be a better title. -- Beland 13:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Mormonism was rejected as the title and the article was moved here. See #Vote to move article to Anti-Mormon and comments from the RFC which inspired the move. --Trödel 14:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was suggesting that "anti-Mormonism" was a good title; that sounds like some sort of inverse religion. -- Beland 16:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem of the content of this page is that it makes it seem as if Mormons only have critics who have an anti-Mormon agenda or prejudice, whereas there's a good deal of honest disagreements under Criticism of Mormonism. I think that's partly a problem of scope, which is restricted to a single label. It would be easier to neutrally write a broad "Opposition to Mormonism" article which includes everything from honest criticism, to prejudical vendettas, to persecution. -- Beland 16:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

When we look at articles that could be associated with this topic we find: Anti-Mormon, Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Criticism of Mormonism, Ex-Mormon, and Mormonism and Christianity. Obviously, there is no shortage of articles that attempt to criticize the topic at hand.

This article is not about criticism, but rather a specific type of behavior and activity. The article acknowledges this fact and does attempt to demonstrate why this activity is different from individuals who simply have a different belief system or interpretation of scripture.

I have advocated for some time that we do not need such a multitude of articles, but trying to merge them ruffles a lot of feathers. I see no reason for Anti-Mormon, Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Criticism of Mormonism. I agree with you that merging should happen, but I would not support a small step. If you want to spearhead merging all of them, I would support that action. Though I agree with those who differentiate between anti-Mormon behavior and criticism, I believe we can successfully write an article that addresses both positions. Thoughts? Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the articles should be merged (that would be a HUGE article), but it would be nice to have a parent article to organize the information. Really, when you think about it, what Anti-Mormon activity (and, apparently, even it's existence) is very controversial, as are the criticisms. The issue of Mormons being Christian or not is also a criticism and a controversy. All of the above articles are highly related, and yet they each have sufficient information to warrant their own articles. The logical solution would be to bring them all under the umbrella of an organizing article. --uriah923^(talk) 17:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see one acceptable explanation for the existence of an article like, "Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". This is a list and not an article; there is no explanation of anything, but rather its purpose to demonstrate that there are a great number of controversies. Read the list; you will find such incredibly earth-shattering controversies like the Word of Wisdom, Official church activism against: state lotteries, gay marriage, pornography, abortion rights, the Equal Rights Amendment, etc.

The article attempts to be a list of other articles and then devolves into a smear of anything that can remotely come close to being about Mormons. We find such illuminating nonsense as:

Mormonism and society

Utah highest use of antidepressants in nation [17]

Utah highest rate of bankruptcy in nation[18]

Utah labeled as fraud capital of nation[19]

The only similarity is that it is about Utah and has nothing to do with Mormons, the LDS church, or anything else. This is the kind of jounalism one finds in the National Enquirer and the Star. No real evidence of anything, but stack up the information and before you know it there is real controversy. Is there anything like this articles in regards to the Roman Catholic church or any other large church? This is what I would term a prime example of anti-Mormon behavior and action. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You really don't see how any of that relates to Mormonism? A.J.A. 18:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Related to Mormonism? Hmmm. Let's start with 17, 18 and 19 all being untrue. -Visorstuff 19:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]. Unfortunately, the series of articles critical of Islam has had some similarly ridiculous content. They were shaping up until a pro-Islam editor disrupted the process, resulting in an ArbComm case that sucked the life out of editing the articles. That case is now over so I hope the editing is getting underway again. GRBerry 18:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks, sorry to derail, but there are plenty of people out there that consider themselves "anti-Mormon" just the same as those who consider themselves Anti-semitic or anti-Catholic. The term definitely deserves its own article. And then there are those who belive mormons should all be rounded up and killed - or at least make threats for it both on and offline. I recieved a number of death threats this past year from my work on the wikipedia articles Antimormonism and exmormonism. It got bad enough to force a wikiholiday. In any case, there is scholarship in this area, lets use it and get this article in better shape. Beland, when you get the other "Anti-" articles to move to a "prejudice" or "activism" in their titles, then we'll follow suit. Until then, we'd like to keep consistent across wikipedia. We feel that similar groups should be treated equally. -Visorstuff 19:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The title of those articles are not "anti-Catholic" and "anti-Semitic", they are "Anti-Semitism" and "Anti-Catholicism". The former does not have any ambiguity in my mind that it refers to prejudice; the title of the latter is similarly disputed. There does not appear to be a clear rule, - if there were one, it'd be that -ism should be part of the title, which we decided against. -- Beland 22:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly believe there is a functioning group(s) within society at large that are anti-Mormon and their behavior does need to be identified. However, I can be enrolled in having one or two articles, but not the number present on WIKI now.

Religion seems to breed zealots. Most times I believe even zealots can eventually be engaged in a degree of intelligent, logical conversation, but one must first get them to breathe. Stop trying to defend their turf and/or attacking everyone they view as "wrong". It is true that Islam has their share, but Christians are just as capable. History has demonstrated they are just as stupid and willing to forfeit all teachings of Christ to further their personal objectives.

The issue here is though the topic is religious in nature, it is not a place for those with religious soap boxes. A.J.A. and I have had opportunity to "converse" before and I think some things get worked out, it just takes time. My issue above is a list of "controversersies" has not place in an encyclopedia; particularly when the list is erroneous. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this article supposed to be about anti-Mormon prejudice, or people who disagree with Mormon theology, or the rhetorical device of Mormons labeling their critics as anti-Mormon? The title does not seem to make that clear. Or is this article supposed to be about the term itself? Wikipedia is not a dictionary or usage guide; it's supposed to describe real-world things, not words. But if this phrase is so important it deserves its own article, then I think "Anti-Mormon (term)" would be less confusing and less apparently biased. -- Beland 22:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia article, so it would cover all relevant aspects of the topic, including the ones you mentioned. CaliforniaKid 09:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't that seem a little fuzzy and redundant with other overlapping articles? -- Beland 08:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Beland, criticism is a much differnt issue than Anti-Mormonism. If some context is helpful, the article title was changed to better reflect the current article content. I personally think -ism is a better title, and I don't label people as anti-mormons, but i like to clarify that they are involved in anti-mormon activism or anti-mormon behavior. very few people are truly anti-semitic or anti-mormon, but many people engage in such activities. i would have argued against this change had i not been on wikiholiday, and I believe the change was spearheaded during a large influx of temporary exmormon editors. perhaps you are right in revisiting this topic. I'd support a change back for standardization and makeing the article to confirm to the title, rather than the other way around. hope this helps. -Visorstuff 21:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul

This article needs a complete overhaul. It simply seems to consist of a description of injustices perceived by Mormons, according to their own descriptions. Just because the subject is "anti-Mormonism" does not mean Wikipedia should entirly take the vicitms word for how things happened. To read this you would think that Christians pubishing an apologetic tract explaining why Mormons are wrong is some kind of heinous crime, while Mormons going to Christian homes and trying to convince people to convert to Mormonism is just them being nice. DJ Clayworth 03:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

User:FyzixFighter, please don't removed my fully-referenced statements using 'original research' as an excuse Are you seriously suggesting that the early Mormon's claims to be 'the true church' and calling all other churches 'apostate' was not a strong cause of the opposition from the other churches?

Likewise I wrote that Mormons do not consider other churches 'true Christians'. Well we've already seen that Mormons consider other churches to be 'apostate', and apostacy means to have abandoned your religion. You can't be apostate from Christianity and yet remain a true Christian. This definitely deserves to be mentioned. Currently a lot of the article reads as though these nice Mormons proposed (very nicely) some new ideas and other Christians reacted in a totally uncalled for way. Adding that the Mormons flung around terms like 'apostate', 'corrupt' and 'whore of Babylon' when describing other churches gives a slightly more accurate picture of the situation. DJ Clayworth 13:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

While we are about it, is Joseph Smith really the best source to use as a description of early relations between Mormons and Christians? Is it not just possible that he may have been a little biased? DJ Clayworth 14:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

User:FyzixFighter I don't currently have a reference for Smith's accusations against the other churches being a cause of opposition. It's hard to imagine that it was not a contribution. I've moved the reference to the 'apostacy' and 'corruption' statements back to be included in the list of things that Smith preached (do I need to supply a reference? There are plenty to support this elsewhere in the article). The section stating that there was 'increased opposition to the Book of Mormon' also needs a cite. DJ Clayworth 16:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

DJ, I've removed most of your contributions as they are either out of place, off-subject, or unsupported. Please be objective and contribute to the article to improve it through the use of academia. Do not simply interject your opinions. --uriah923^(talk) 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually Uriah you removed sourced statements which are entirely relevant and supported. The fact that Smith and other early Mormons preached that other churches were 'apostate and corrupt' is entirely (and objectively) relevant when we are talking about Christian churches reaction to Mormons. Why would you think it not so? That such preaching occurred is not my opinion, it is a demonstrable fact for which I have supplied references. I have reverted your changes. You can, if you wish, explain why you think these statements are irrelevant, but it is not enough for you simply to say they are irrelevant. DJ Clayworth 19:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

All statements I removed were either 1) unsupported, 2) off-subject or 3) out of place. I explained each change in the edit summary. Your comments concerning the motivation of anti-Mormon activity is completely speculative. Your only sources are those that quote Mormon leaders, but such quotes are either off-topic or out of place. Again, please contribute to a quality encyclopedic article - not an opinion dumping ground. --uriah923^(talk) 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply restating your objections is not explaining them. So I'll not make it very clear why everything I wrote is n fact supported and relevant.

1. Joseph Smith preached that all other churches were corrupt from the start of his ministry. I can't right now find a quote to support this, but by his own admission he was told this by God before he begin his Ministry (First Vision) so it is not an reasonable assumption that he preached it. If you have other sources to dispute this let me know. If you can really show that he didn't start preaching this doctrine until after the BoM was published then I'll be happy to leave the statement 'til the next paragraph.
2. Mormon leaders taught that the other churches were corrupt at about the same time as the publication of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon contains such statements, which have been cited many times elsewhere, so this is fully supported. That it is relevant is, I hope, obvious. If I were to horribly insult someone, and after that they begin to dislike me, that's not a coincidence. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is sometimes true. Incidentally you left the statement that "increased opposition was caused by the publication of the Book of Mormon", which has equally little support. So fairness would indicate that if you remove one you remove both.
3. Your removed the statement "Mormons, for their part, do not recognise any other denominations as 'true Christians', and insist that they are the only divinely appointed Christian church.". Are you claiming that this is not true? Or not relevant? It is certainly true, and I fail to see how it can be considered irrelevant.
4. The belief of the Mormon churches that they are the "only true church" and that all other churches have fallen into apostacy is of course the belief that causes the most acrimony. Actually the whole section here is utterly unreferenced - every doctrine that is suggested as a cause is entirely unsupported. I can, if you wish, find dozens of Christian criticisms of Mormon doctrine in which the 'one true church' belief always features.

So I'm undoing your changes. Feel free to offer counter-arguments to what I said, but just saying 'irrelevant' won't work. DJ Clayworth 14:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the requested point-for-point justification of the reverts:

1. Once you find some support, we can discuss the proper location and manner to include the material.
2. See #1.
3. This statement is off-topic. It teaches the reader nothing about anti-Mormonism other than your opinion. It is not NPOV, is not supported by academia, and does not flow in the article.
4. Your last statement betrays exactly why this sentence does not belong in an encyclopedic article on "anti-Mormon;" it is a criticism of Mormon doctrine that teaches us nothing on the subject.

I suggest that you (and everyone else) recognize this issue as controversial and bring major changes up for discussion here before starting edit wars. In this case, it is obvious you feel strongly that the claim of the LDS church to be the "only true church" is a cause of much of the anti-Mormon activity. This, however, is nothing more than your opinion until you can provide sources establishing the causal relationship. Once that is done, I'm sure we can find a place for it in the article (under the "Views" tab, no doubt). --uriah923^(talk) 21:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. Sorry about making the undo a minor change - that was unintentional. DJ Clayworth 14:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

DJ, I don't have a problem with mentioning once in the history section that Joseph Smith called the creeds abominable or the doctors of Christianity corrupt. I also don't have a problem mentioning the teaching of the "Great Apostasy". These are important in understanding why orthodox Christians have so opposed Mormonism. However, this only needs to be stated once in the article. It gets very redundant when you hammer it home in paragraph after paragraph. Furthermore, statements like this one are clearly POV:

"The belief of the Mormon churches that they are the "only true church" and that all other churches have fallen into apostacy is of course the belief that causes the most acrimony."

I know many critics of Mormonism who would identify a different doctrine as the watershed for their opposition. So unless you know of someone who has done a survey of all anti-Mormon literature and statistically established that this belief is the one that causes the most acrimony, this statement should not be included in the article.

CaliforniaKid 16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not done such a survey, but the criticisms I have looked at mention this doctrine very frequently.

That's because the anti-Mormon critics feed off of each other. When I joined the Church, the first "proof that the Mormons aren't Christian" in the books, pamphlets and speeches was nearly always that we don't believe that the Bible is 100% accurate, inerrant and correctly translated. This was before the emergence of several new English translations of the Bible, each of which differs from the others. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

I would settle for 'one of the doctrines that causes most acrimony'. I would also allow for the statement about 'corruption and abomination' to appear once. At the moment we seem to be unsure about whether it was taught from the start (uriah923 asserted that it was not) or only taught after the publication of the BoM. If we can pin down which it was I would be fine for it to be mentioned only in the relevant paragraph.

I think there is a good case for mentioning it briefly in the intro as well, otherwise the article tends to read as though Mormons were simply trying to fit in with other Christians and were persecuted for their differences. DJ Clayworth 17:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "one doctrine that has caused a great deal of acrimony is..."? Just FYI, Mormons were initially persecuted primarily for economic and political reasons rather than because of any particular doctrine(s), so I don't know how appropriate this is in the section that covers the history of persecution of the Mormon church. It might be better in a section on modern anti-Mormons.

By the way, if the intent of these additions is to demonstrate that Mormons didn't consider themselves a "Christian" church, then you're wrong. I used to think that, as well, but I read a few books that showed me the error of my ways. While Joseph Smith did not believe in having creeds (something he picked up from Restoration churches like that of Alexander Campbell, who called the creeds an "abomination"), and while he believed that the Christian leaders of his day were corrupt and mostly in it for the money, early Mormon leaders nevertheless considered the LDS church a "Christian" church. It was simply the purest Christian church, the one with the most truth, and the only one with priesthood authority to perform binding ordinances. The last part is what they are referring to when they say it is "the only true church". It would be misguided in an encyclopedia article to try to argue that Mormons did not consider themselves Christians.

It would also be misguided in an encyclopedia article to try to justify the actions of those who attacked and killed Mormons. But I'm pretty sure that's not what you're getting at. Cheers, CaliforniaKid 16:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the unsupported section as, without any references, it smacks of original research. Remember the burden of proof is on an editor putting information in, so please find supporting references then put it back in. Statements like "I don't have a reference at the moment, but if you have a contradictory reference then go ahead and change it" are antithetical to WP:V and WP:NOR. Also, what is your intention in adding the final line in the opening paragraph of Christian groups. IMO that sentence does not belong since the paragraph is discussing how some Christian groups respond to mormonism, not how mormons view the rest of Christianity. I've editted it to take out the "true Christian" comment which is your interpretation of Mormon theology (OR and POV) and left the rest which is supportable, but I still don't think it belongs except as an example of one Mormon belief that Christian groups reject and criticize (in which case it is already mentioned in a previous footnote). Since I don't know how you intend the sentence to be relevant to the paragraph I've left it in, but I would like to know why you think such a phrase is important so we can put it where it belongs, or edit it in such a way that it does belong. --FyzixFighter 22:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain why that sentence is relevant. The section as a whole describes how Christian churches do not recognise Mormons as a valid part of the Christian church. I could play dumb and say I don't know why the whole section is in the article, but in actual fact I do know. It's in as a example of what is considered 'ani-mormon behaviour' - that Mormons are not considered proper Christians. If it is to stand as a neutral paragraph then a mention must be made of the fact that that Mormons consider other Christian churches as invalid in exactly the same way. DJ Clayworth 19:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Failure to discuss

User:Uriah923 are you actually going to discuss the contents of the article, or are you going to simply keep reverting? I wrote a lengthy piece above explaining why I think you are wrong about this, and you have not responded. Please do so. In this edit you reverted my changes with the edit summary that they were "1) unsupported and 2) out of order". Well you removed two references so 'unsupported' is obviously incorrect. And if you think the points were made out of order, please re-insert them in what you consider to be the correct order. This is not helping your cause at all. DJ Clayworth 21:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

See my above comments. Also, providing a reference for a quote does not make something supported. For example, what if I inserted a claim in the article that anti-Mormon activity is caused by the fact that Jews don't accept Jesus and the Messiah. Even if I provided a reference showing they actually believed this, I would need support for the causality in order for the claim to be supported. --uriah923^(talk) 21:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Uriah read what it was you removed. Nowhere in what you removed was it claimed that Mormon exclusivism was the cause of anit-Mormon activity (though frankly only an idiot would claim there was no relationship between them). It is put in as counterpoint. The statements of other Christian churches not recognising Mormonism as valid are given as examples of Anit-Mormon behaviour. Statements that Mormons behave in exactly the same way are surely relevant to the article. What you are doing here is bordering on vandalism.

You also removed from a reference a statement of Mormon belief which is unquestionably true and properly referenced, namely that "the Mormon church is the only one with divine authority, and that all other churches have fallen into apostacy". Please explain why you did this. It is correctly referenced as a belief of the Morkon churches. If you claim it was removed because there is no reference to show that it is a cause of division, then that is true of every belief mentioned in the note. Either remove them all or let this one stay. DJ Clayworth 19:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already answered all of your questions. Re-reading the material removed does nothing but confirm my actions. I will start a section below to look for a consensus on this issue. If that doesn't solve this, I'll have to seek arbitration. --uriah923^(talk) 04:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Books on this topic

I have just finished reading Rough Stone Rolling and it has much insight on the early church. Most of the early opposition to the church had very little to do with doctrine or church bashing. Most movements of the time claimed to be the only true church and everyone was pulling people this way and that with claims of the truth. Many of the anti-mormon folks were burned in land deals, felt pressure by their new large block of neihbors who tended to make it hard for them to live independently. It was a lot about a voting block who sympatized with Indians, could possibly be abolishionists (although the church had to sign afidavits to the contrary, to make peace with their neighbors), and were a pretty solid and intimidating group. So it is a lot deeper than just doctrine.

I also thing there needs to be a "Credibility" section to cover outlandish claims like the church owns Marriot, and throws virgins into the Great Salt Lake from the temple, as well as the more credible research done by the Tanners. At least give the reader a spectrum from the outlandish to those who attempt to give accurate information. I really thing that Ed Decker's denouncement by the Tanners is critical. Bytebear 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm about 450 pages into the same book. I agree that it has excellent info, some of which I've included in this article. --uriah923^(talk) 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wish I had highlighted and annotated the book. Now I probably have to re-read it to find all the good stuff in it. Bytebear 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I recently read Offenders for a Word, which has a lot of great information about Ed Decker and other prominent anti-Mormons. I'll include some it this info when I have time. CaliforniaKid 00:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Main problem with this dispute

Something important needs to be said here. Just because this article is called "Anti-Mormon" does not mean it can be nothing but a catalogue of the ways Mormons feel they have been treated badly. That is not a neutral article. However some people who are editing this seem to want to try to turn it into precisely that. If I were to break somebody's arm and knock them unconscious it would be possible to write an article "DJ Clayworth's assault on person X" listing everything I did, the results and the medical facts. But that article is not a neutral article if it fails to mention that the person was attacking me with a knife when I did it. An article must report both sides of a story, even if the name of the article seems to indicate one-sidedness.

Frankly I expect better of editors than this. DJ Clayworth 19:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Because of my prior RFC response above, and that one of the editors knew I've been following the talk page since, I've been asked to return and opine on the edit war discussed in the next section. I choose not to specifically address the right solution to that. Frankly, I'm not sure what the right solution is. I had previously thought the article was going to be primarily about the term. I'm no longer certain that is the intention of the editors here. I think that there is a reasonably close approximation to a NPOV article about the term in some of the sections of the page. It is, however, combined with a number of other sections (generally speaking, the sections about historial and modern anti-Mormonism) that aren't as successfully presented from a neutral point of view.

I am not suggesting here that the right solution is to make the article be solely about the term. I am saying that so long as material about those that have been labeled as anti-mormon is in the article, that material needs to adhere to the policy WP:NPOV. Here are a couple relevant quotes from that policy page (italics removed):

1. "When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view."
2. " let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner."
3. "Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization".

What I find missing from the article at present is balance in explaining why opposition to Mormonism arose and was sustained. There were obviously some reasons for it, presumably varying by time and place. The net effect of the omissions is to create the appearance that the hostility was not rational or legitimate. That appearance is a problem, to be addressed through further editing. GRBerry 04:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with GRBerry here - that the article should focus on the term itself - the history of the term, etc. There are plenty of places where the claims counterclaims/grievances etc can be covered --Trödel 15:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on recent edit wars

There have been edit wars recently concerning the addition of this material by DJ Clayworth. As seen in these edits (1, 2, 3), uriah923 has removed the content multiple times claiming it is either 1) off-topic, 2) out of order, or 3) unsupported. A community consensus is desired to help solve this conflict prior to seeking arbitration. Please review the issue and (briefly) comment below in the appropriate section.

Include

1. weak include with predicate. It is true that (some) modern christians use the fact that Mormons claim exclusive truth as a reason (among others) for their anti-mormon stance, however, at the time of Joseph Smith, most new religious movements (of which there were many, as evidenced by the often quoted burned out district) claimed exclusive authority from God. To keep the article balanced, we need to cover all angles. In the history section, it MUST be noted that anti-Mormon attitudes was not about religion, and that this is a fairly recent change in actors, from government and political to religious and theological. It should be noted that Smith was Jailed for the political and not religious reasons. Bytebear 05:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

To add to my thoughts, this article should not be about specific attacks by anti's or defenses by apologists. This article should be about the history, and specific events and people key to the formation of anti-mormon thought. This page is not a debate on the merits of Mormonism. So if the material is presented in a way that persuades the reader to shun or embrace Mormonism, it should be removed or restated. Bytebear 05:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Exclude

1. Strong exclude. The material is out of place, poorly written, redundant and unsupported. If appropriate support can be found, however, I am fine with the claim being included under the Views section of the article. --uriah923^(talk) 04:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
2. I don't think it makes all that much difference, frankly, but I'd say exclude at this point. I'm plenty fine with mentioning the doctrine in the article, but I don't think DJ Clayworth has done a very convincing job of finding an appropriate place to put it. CaliforniaKid 05:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Exclude. I agree with Beland that the idea about most modern Mormons not considering other Christians as "true Christians" is wrong (and, thus, original research). I can see why someone not familiar with the LDS church could think that, but it is not correct. We believe that none of the other churches have the same kind of authority, but that says nothing about the members of such groups. IMHO, most Mormons consider anyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a Christian. As for the other edits, they seem unbalanced, not relevant, and/or not representative. Belief in exclusive authority was more the norm back then than unique, but didn't cause problems with other groups. I would think the only groups that would have problem with that kind of attitude today are those who believe that they represent the "one true church." (And the reason that many have similar problems with Catholics.) Consider the first presidency message message from Pres. Kimball about how many religions contain a portion of the truth and their members being good people. That certainly hasn't stopped anti-Mormon attitudes, so I see no reason to belief that the "one true" believe is a cause of anti-Mormon attitudes. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 12:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Exclude. The attempt at making the statement "one true chuch" to be uniquely atrocious is a red herring. It comes so close to One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that it certainly is not unique; it only becomes one group of many that have stated the same thing. True Chrisitian? LDS have always stated that other churches taught Jesus Christ and were therefore Christian. Their Christianity has always been acknowledged and respected. However, LDS have always stated that the LDS church was the restored church of Jesus Christ and it possessed the fullness of the Gospel of Christ (Note: that is the exact phrase used by the Catholic church). Also, fullness is not complete, but sufficient for salvation and exaltation. More importantly the LDS church taught there was a Great Apostasy, the priesthood had been restored to the earth, and with the it the same organization that had been instituted by Jesus Christ. I think the comments basically demonstrate a lack of understanding of Christian history and they are motivated by an agenda to make the LDS church something it is not; they should be excluded as currently written. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Exclude as currently stated but Improve This article needs improvment in general, so I will limit my comments to the changes made recently:

   Some of the language proposed by DJClayworth is not presented neutrally, and should be modified if it is to be included. Additionally this sentences is outright false, for example, "Mormons, for their part, do not recognise any other denominations as 'true Christians', and insist that they are the only divinely appointed Christian church." In fact the BOM teaches that true believers take upon themselves the name of Christ or Christians Alma 46:15, and that we covenant at baptism to "become true Christians" ("part of the covenant we made when we were baptized was to be willing to take the name of Jesus Christ upon us and become a true Christian, or follower of Christ." Primary 4 Manual PDF)

   Additionally, as has been pointed out, ad nauseum, on the First Vision article, JS was careful in disclosing all the facts at first, especially given the reaction to his vision. I.e. before he could even explain what happened, the disclosure that JS felt that he had received a vision or a direct communication from God was attacked as being impossible, "from the devil," the imaginations of a young mind, lies of an attention seeker, etc. To juxtipose comments made in the 1838 into a section about how JS antagonized others before 1830 misrepresents the situation - and is not verifiable - i.e. it is bad scholarship to present references to statements made in around 1838 as being presented before 1830. --Trödel 22:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Improve

• The idea that most modern Mormons do not regard other Christians as "true Christians" is not accurate, if you ask around. Certainly there are some American Christians who do not regard Mormonism as a form of Christianity, and there's probably some reciprocation there, but in general, Mormons seem to have settled in as relatively mainstream respectable Christians. It's true that Mormons do have that "we are the only divinely appointed Christian church" thing going on, but this is also an element of some other Christian sects, including to some degree Catholicism. It is true that Mormonism has an unusually large missionary component, but it is not alone in this regard, and certainly not historically. Just read the article missionary, for example. Certainly both of these factors help explain why the other residents of the United States were hostile to the Mormons, in addition to some of the other factors mentioned in the article. I think it's important to explain these two, and I don't see any other material in the article doing that, so it doesn't seem redundant. However, the rather harsh wording proposed by the highlighted edit is not really a good way to do that.

If you read about the history of the movement, there are several other points of interest that help explain why neighboring peoples might get upset at the Mormons. For instance:

• A doctrine of theocracy, that Mormon law should override secular law. Consider the threat that Missouri or Illinois residents might percieve from a group in their midst attempting to create a theocratic society.
• Early on, communal land ownership and illegal currency printing schemes
• A strong "in or out but not on the fence" philosophy on membership and emphasis on accepting the church's teachings in their totality
• Revelations which directed members to buy up the land in particular places (one of those "this is our Promised Land" deals), and to vote as a block, resulting in the domination of the economy and politics in certain counties
• A prophecy that the federal government would be overthrown should it not redress the wrongs done to the Mormons, (see Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#United_States_government_overthrown_and_wasted). (And other prophecies on that page, such as that Jackson County, Missouri would be destroyed. Not listed is the "White Horse Prophecy" - that the U.S. Constitution would be hanging by a thread and a church elder from Zion would ride in on a metaphorical white horse and save it.[11]) This might be related to the question of revenge oaths at the Smoot Hearings.
• Incidents such as the Mountain Meadows massacre, in which Mormons killed travellers entering their territory
• Actions of the Danite vigilantes

There's also a fair amount of prejudice, hatred, vigilatism, religous zealotry, atrocity, and desire for power and economic resources to be found in the history on the part of the non-Mormon neighbors. Part of the historical pattern is that after each conflict, both Mormon and non-Mormon groups become more distrustful and resentful of the other side, which only seems to make the next conflict worse. So some of the things listed above that might worry neighbors are reactions to the unreasonable actions of previous neighbors, but worrying they were nonetheless.

Some of the actual dispute here seems to be about whether or not the "one true church" doctrine caused or causes friction. That sort of thing always causes friction, though many (but not all) sects have that doctrine. But it's also one factor out of many, and it takes an expert historian to interpret primary sources and put them in context and make an evaluation of causal claims. That's why the references were deemed insufficient and the claim deemed original research. What's desired here is secondary sources that look at the doctrine and the criticisms and the events that have transpired and support the claim of that this is an important cause - the context of what is important and what is not is, well, important.

This article definitely takes a rather narrow slice of this topic - mostly focusing on theological disputes - and is missing a lot of context about historical events and motivations surrounding both anti-Mormonism and the use of the term. If you ask me, it needs to be restructured and greatly expanded.

Sorry, that wasn't very brief. -- Beland 06:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote, guys but a quick look at my last edits will show that I have already removed most of what is being discussed here. 'Mormons do not regard other Christians as "true Christians" was something I had already been persuaded to take out. Let's be specific about some of the remaining statements.

• "Joseph Smith also claimed that all of the existing Christian churches were 'apostate' and 'corrupt'." This statement is fully referenced, with multiple citations. I can find more if anyone thinks there are not enough.

If you think the statement is in the wrong place, then just say where it goes and I can move it.

• "the belief that the Mormon church is the only one with divine authority, and that all other churches have fallen into apostacy;" this is listed simply in the list of doctrines in which Mormons differ from mainstream Christians. It's referenced exactly as many times as the other doctrines, so surely it belongs there.

Beland, you suggestions seem sensible to me. I would love to see more material like that included.

If you think that the Mormon belief that they are the only church with divine authority is mentioned too many times, maybe we could decide exactly how many times it should be mentioned. DJ Clayworth 01:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the article needs to be refocused on the nature of the term itself, with some explanation of how the term came to be used. It seems that this information being added is primarily to justify the persecutions and to explain the atmosphere - I think that would be better covered in other articles about the early history - the series on JS lifecovers them pretty well and fairly, I'm sure there are others. --Trödel 15:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There's some of that in the article already. Specifically, I added a paragraph to the beginning of the "use of the term" section that explains how the term came to be used. However, I think it is important for the article to consider manifestations of anti-Mormonism, as well. I actually like the way it is arranged right now. It essentially covers the chronological development of anti-Mormon prejudice from the early days of the church to the modern era. The only caution I would issue is that the History section needs to be really focused on opposition to the church. It should not digress into a treatment of the development of the church itself. CaliforniaKid 16:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This info has also been added to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article. If you find a way to improve this info, please also make those changes in that article.--Lethargy 02:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some links that contain quotations and information that may be useful in compiling the "history" section.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-04-07-mormons-illinois_x.htm ; http://lds-mormon.com/tmpc.shtml ; http://radio.weblogs.com/0128987/2004/01/23.html ; http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/mormon/history/pioneers_3.shtml ; http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/south_yorkshire/article_2.shtml

And for the LDS Views Section:

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/

CaliforniaKid 06:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Structure

Given the confusion about its scope (see the section "POV title" above) and overlap with certain other articles, should this article be restructured around the following sections, or similar?

• Anti-Mormon prejudice and persecution
• Criticism of Mormon beliefs
• "Anti-Mormon" as a label

-- Beland 04:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just done some major rewriting and restructuring of the article. It could still use some work. I think that the stuff about Mitt Romney in the "Mainstream Christians and Anti-Mormonism" section should be removed. I also think that the History Section needs a better title and needs to be somewhat reworked.

Among other things, I removed the lists of anti-Mormon publications. They have been relocated to a new article titled List of Anti-Mormon Publications, which I added to the See Also section. That's enough for me for a while. I hope everybody likes the changes.

CaliforniaKid 05:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I think the whole "Mainstream Christians and Anti-Mormonism" section ought to go. The part at the end about protestors, however, could be expanded into a section about protestors at general conferences and temple open houses. I think that's an important manifestation of anti-Mormonism that has gone relatively unnoticed in this article.

I'm also not sure what to do with the Government Influence section at the end. It seems out of place. Maybe it should be moved to the History section.

I may eventually also try to tackle the issue of anti-Mormon motivation. There's some literature on the topic, but it's obviously touchy.

CaliforniaKid 05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think most people tend to focus on theological prejudice, which is probably the most prominamt aspect of anti-Mormon rhetroic, but I think there are other aspects that should be explored.

* Early church and political and government issues.

* Early leaders and members who left and spread anti-Mormon ideas and why.

* Financial and church power as seen as a threat.

* Social issued, particularly to those in Utah (or Nauvoo now that the Mormons are returning, in large numbers)

I think organized anti-mormons use all these issues in presenting their points, even when they are historically moot such as the Spaulding manuscript of which there are many references to historians who dismiss any connection to the Book of Mormon. These issues should also be presented in a section called "Credibility". This can also include stories like the "virgins being thrown into the Great Salt Lake from the temple to escape", or that Mormons have horns or that the church owns Pepsi or Marriott hotels. You know those urban myths that are still presented as fact regardless of the truth. Bytebear 06:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

An important question here is 'How do we (or Mormons) distinguish between theological prejudice and theological disagreement?' DJ Clayworth 16:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this acticle requires restructuring. Something along the lines of what Beland recommended would be positive. The "Modern" section is divided up into "traditional" and "new-age" as if this were a common distiction. however, it appears to be a distinction made by Peterson and Introvigne, not in wide use, and of limited usefulness for understanding the phenomenon... By and large, the article is fairly NPOV... A note on the recent edit war: I do think some of DJ's information should be included, however, we need to find statements corroborating, for instance, the effects of Smith's "abomonation" statement. No one disputes that he said this, and the citation is solid; what is in dispute is that such statements "were met with increased opposition on various fronts". If we can find a reliable source that backs up that assertion, then do it. -Porlob 14:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead Section

The lead section could use improvement. Anybody wanna tackle it? From WP:LEAD

The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establish context, and characterize the terms. It should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text, and should encourage the reader to read more.

CaliforniaKid 03:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Massimo Introvigne a Mormon??

Massimo Introvigne is most definitely NOT a Mormon, unless he's undergone some very recent conversion unknown to the Massimo Introvigne article. He is a very strange and disturbed individual, however... AnonMoos 23:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. Just out of curiosity, what makes him "strange and disturbed"? CaliforniaKid 00:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't hesitate to use rather sleazy tactics to defend abuses committed by religious cults, or to slur and smear those who point out abuses committed by religious cults, and he's obsessed with vampires and pretending to be a vampire, to start with... AnonMoos 08:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

AnonMoos, do you think that might be just slightly skewed, personal POV? In reading his WIKI article, one would be hard pressed to come up with "sleazy tactics" or anything else you mentioned. If you have evidence that he pretends to be a vampire, that should be documented in his article. I almost think it would be better if we accused him of eating young babies or participates in black sabbaths; it would certainly not be any worse than your comments above.  :) Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever -- I did not try to insert that into an article, or propose that it be inserted into an article, but was only responding to "CaliforniaKid". I requested that the Massimo Introvigne article be updated with Vampire info long ago (see Talk:Massimo Introvigne#Vampirism), but don't really feel qualified to write that up myself... AnonMoos 09:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mormons and Anti-Mormons

I find this statement in the section on Traditional Anti-Mormons. "Traditional anti-Mormons, according to Peterson, are those who "are content to argue that Mormonism is untrue" and "incompatible with the Bible.". Is this a definition that we wish to follow? If it is then the world is divided into Mormons and Anti-Mormons, and the mere act of disagreeing with a Mormon makes someone an Anti-Mormon. By this definition of course we can call Mormons "Anti-Christians". Is this a route we want to go down? DJ Clayworth 16:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that makes a good official definition, but it's one that we could include in the "Views" section. --uriah923^(talk) 16:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Currently it's being used as the definition of 'Traditional Anti-Mormons' in that section. Do we have another definition? If not then the whole section may need to go. DJ Clayworth 17:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi DJ Clayworth, do note that under the header "Modern Anti-Mormonism", a slightly more complete definition is given. Traditional anti-Mormons, according to Dr. Peterson, are those who are content to argue that a scurrilous Joseph Smith assisted by a co-conspirator or two could have produced the Book of Mormon, and who make little or no reference to the role of Satan.

I don't get the impression that either Peterson or Introvigne would include as "anti-Mormons" someone who believes Mormonism was a fraud but who doesn't push that idea on anyone else. Notice that the people they include as prime examples of "traditional anti-Mormonism" are those who actively oppose it, who have dedicated their lives to opposing it. But ultimately, neither author tries to define "anti-Mormonism" as it were. They seek only to distinguish the traditional school of anti-Mormon thought from the New Age school of anti-Mormon thought. Their definition is a definition of difference.

And finally, as for your question "Is this a definition that we wish to follow?" I don't think we particularly get to choose which definition to follow. We follow the literature where it takes us. That's the nature of being an encyclopedist rather than an op-ed writer.

CaliforniaKid 17:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Peterson the only person to refer to 'Traditional Anti-Mormons'? If so, then we could reasonably delete the entire section. If not then someone must have a better definition. The 'role of Satan' seems to be a pretty specific. A lot of people could say very nasty things about Mormons without ever mentioning Satan. DJ Clayworth 21:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the two schools isn't how "nasty" they are. Like you said, people in both schools can be anywhere on the spectrum from "nasty" to loving, supportive, and sincere. The difference is how they perceive Mormonism-- and how they go about opposing it. Is it a "cult" started by a fraud that can be refuted by appeal to historical evidence (traditional school) or is it a death cult inspired by Satan himself, from whom Mormons must be "delivered" by means of exorcism or deprogramming?

To answer your question: no, Peterson isn't the only one who makes the distinction. It is also made by Massimo Introvigne, Kerry Shirts, and Louis Midgley. Others make the same distinction without actually using Peterson's terminology. Jerald and Sandra Tanner don't name the new school, but they label its tenet that Mormons are demonized "the Lucifer-God Doctrine". They vehemently denounce the Schnoebelen-Decker school with its accusations of Mormon Satanism. In any case, Peterson is academia's foremost chronicler of anti-Mormonism. I felt his terminology was useful for helping people understand the anti-Mormon mindset and for dividing the article into sections. Certainly the distinction he makes between the two schools hasn't been criticized anywhere that I have found. CaliforniaKid 22:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of people are either neutral on Mormonism or completely unaware of it. Of the remainder, most are non-Mormons, some of whom are actually familiar to some extent with Mormon doctrine. A small subgroup of these are Anti-Mormons, people who are actively against Mormonism in one way or another. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

POV

While I think we can all agree that this article needs cleanup and improvement, do you think we can remove the POV tag? I haven't seen a whole lot of POV complaints lately, and I think most of the issues have been dealt with.

CaliforniaKid 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say yes, but I'm not sure how long it will be before somebody adds it back in. :-( wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could take a vote? I support! CaliforniaKid 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, now discuss, don't vote ;). More seriously, let the question stand for a little bit. If any active watchers disagree they'll chime in. Especially if we give 'em obvious edit summaries on the talk page. If nobody disagrees for a while, then do it. If there is disagreement, figure out why and solve the problem, then ask again. GRBerry 00:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ok. No vote. <grin> CaliforniaKid 05:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the original assessment that the article needs work but it is not violating NPOV. --uriah923^(talk) 13:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: Seems pretty well in line with NPOV to me. -Porlob 20:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Walter Martin

I don't know much about Martin or his claims, but two passages about him on this article appear to contradict each other, under the "Modern Anti-Mormonism" heading.

The first, "'traditional anti-Mormonism', typified by... (to a certain extent) the anti-cult expert Walter Martin" downplays his relevance, implying that some might see him as anti-Mormon, but not very prominent.

The second says Martin is "perhaps the most controversial of the traditional anti-Mormons," implying that he is the most prominent anti-Mormon of all...

So which is it? -Porlob 14:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Most controversial" says nothing about level of prominence in any other way. Wally had some morality and honesty issues which his supporters to this day do their best to ignore or downplay. This is the source of the controversy. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

The "to a certain extent" line is there because Martin occasionally leans toward a "New Age Anti-Mormon" paradigm but seems to shy away from it when he sees how outrageous folks like Decker and Schnoebelen can get. CaliforniaKid 01:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Walter Martin, the original Bible Answer Man, is dead. Are you talking about his successor, Hank Hennegraaf? Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about Martin. Saying he "writes" this or "leans" toward that (in the present tense) is just a literary convention. I'm aware he's dead. CaliforniaKid 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My concern was not confirming you knew he was dead, but the statement that he leaned to a "New Age" paradigm. I always thought of him in a strictly traditional sense. I would be interested in how you developed this position; I am just trying to learn more about him. Thanks. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Introvigne says this: "Even though there is considerable doubt concerning the real position of Walter Martin-- it is known that he felt that the film The God Makers was a good tool to be used against Mormonism-- he was apparently against the subsequent and more extreme theories on Satanism advanced by Decker, Schnoebelen, and Spencer." (p. 165)

For more info on Martin's excessive side, see Offenders for a Word by Peterson and Ricks. CaliforniaKid 19:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference; I have not read the book. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "most controversial" sound like peacock words to me. Bytebear 22:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Image - minor point

This image: Image:Manti-1999.jpg is in the section Anti-Mormon#Anti-Mormon protesters yet I don't think that it illustrates the topic - i.e. it is not an image of protesting. Thus I deleted and think it doesn't belong in the article. Can someone explain to me how this illustrates protesting? --Trödel 18:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it isn't appropriate, but moreso because it is clearly a posed photo of anonymous people. It makes me wonder if they agreed to have the image released, and who these people are. If they were "generic" non-posing people, I would be less hesitant about using it. Bytebear 21:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. This photo should be removed. --Austinsimcox 13:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved again?

I see we've been moved back to anti-Mormonism. The editor cited the wikipedia naming conventions on adjectives, but of course "anti-Mormon" is also a noun. The whole reason we moved this to anti-Mormon in the first place was that there was some controversy as to whether there's even any such thing as anti-Mormonism: some kind of coherent worldview or motivational schema adhered to by all anti-Mormons. Since this has been a controversial question in the past, I'm a little miffed that the editor undertook the move without making any mention of his plans on the talk page. I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, but please do be aware that major, potentially controversial changes should be discussed here before they are made. CaliforniaKid 00:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes

The new material on Sherlock Holmes is interesting. Does it come entirely from the adherents.com source? If not, other sources should be cited; no original reasearch allowed. I also wonder if this one reference warrants a full subsection of its own. Maybe it would be better in the Sherlock Holmes article. For our purposes it should probably be pared down, unless we want to give a full dossier on other early antimo publications. What does everyone else think? CaliforniaKid 08:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Additions to "why is there opposition"

As to the section above entitled Why is there Opposition, I found some errors (or at least it seemed that way too me). As a Mormon I can tell you, we did not and do not lessen the status of Jesus Christ and God the Father. We believe that through Jesus, salvation is possible. We also do not peceive the Bible as second class scripture. We believe it to be just as important as the Book of Mormon. I don't think you meant to imply the opposite of what I just said, it just seemed that way to me. --Austinsimcox 14:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Austin, I somewhat disagree. You have to understand what you're being compared to. In traditional Christianity, God is infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; the entire universe is a part of his being. While some Mormons use some of these terms (see for example Stephen Robinson's use of "omnipresent," they qualify them in ways that other Christians would not. And there is no question that Mormonism teaches that God is finite and material. Traditional Christianity sees all of this as a "lessening" of God's divinity. Similar things could be said for Jesus, although I think the Mormon view of God the Father is generally more objectionable than their view of Jesus. As for the Bible, Mormons believe that the Bible is true only insofar as it is "translated correctly," although no similar caveat is given for the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. It is understood also that "plain and precious" things have been removed from it, making it incomplete and in need of supplement from other sources. Whether this makes it "second-rate scripture" is questionable, but it does diminish it noticeably from the high position it occupies in most mainstream Christian denominations. CaliforniaKid 05:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I think you're dancing an extremely fine. Absolutely Mormons describe God as infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent (and perhaps his influence could be considered omnipresent). Certainly the idea that Mormon's think God (or any other being for that matter) is finite is completely ridiculous. As to the Bible, the argument is really kind of pointless, because other Christian's only accept the Old and New Testament. I guess what I'm saying is the same argument we're using could be used to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon is considered as second-rate scripture because the D&C was produced afterwards. It seems most of the opposition is due to a misinterpretation, misunderstanding or generalization of Mormon beliefs about the nature of deity, the definition of scripture (D&C 1:38) and the wide-reaching claims made by the church. Effectively it claims to be the actual church organization that existed in the time of Christ, with revelation, prophets, "new" scripture, etc. One main thing we need to keep in mind with this article is the fact that typical Anti-Mormon perceptions of Mormons (true or not) do not necessarily indicate Mormon beliefs, and we need to keep these two issues separated. gdavies 06:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. --Austinsimcox 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

gdavies, I don't think it is due to a misunderstanding of Mormon doctrine, though perhaps to a generalization of it. It is true that many Mormons use the "omni" terms, and some who have converted from mainline churches may even mean them the way traditional Christians mean them. However, this is a relatively recent phenomenon in Mormonism, which coincides with Pres. Benson's re-emphasis on the BoM and the rise of Mormon neo-orthodoxy. It should also be noted that Sterling McMurrin, in his book The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion, says that because Mormon theology denies creation of the world out of nothing, it demands a "radical finitism." In other words, the Mormon God is finite in the philosophical sense of the term. You might argue that he is infinite in some other loose way, e.g. that he has infinite knowledge or power, but even these assertions are questionable. McMurrin's book is the gold standard in Mormon philosophy. I don't want to unnecessarily belabor the point, but I would to point you to Bailey's essay on the subject in Dialogue: available here as a PDF. CaliforniaKid 08:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this argument is interesting, but this is not what this article is about. It should go in the Mormonism and Christianity article. This article is about the phenomenon called Anti-Mormonism. Sure debates over theology are part of it, but they don't approach the level of anti-Mormon behavior. I think if you go this route, you will make this article go way off track. Bytebear 19:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree... unfortunately I lack the self control to not dabble in this a bit longer, as I feel it's an important concept to guide the focus of this article. As to your comments, CaliforniaKid... call it a "generalization" or a "mischaracterization" or whatever you like, it's an incorrect interpretation/understanding/representation that is at the heart of Anti-Mormonism. Whether it's an "innocent" misunderstanding or a willful misrepresentation with the intent to defame is another issue... As to radical finitism; McMurrin makes for good philosophy, but I don't think that this idea calls for a God as a finite being (at all). The doctrine I believe this is referring to is the idea that the elements were already here at the time of the creation. Certainly God the Father could have created all of this matter "from nothing" at some time before... or not, who knows, but certainly this doesn't diminish God's divinity, power, knowledge, etc. It just contradicts the prevailing creationist notion of "ok, now!" and the world appears. Your extrapolation of the theory of radical finitism to the nature of God may be justified by McMurrin's book, but certainly not by the statement you mentioned. As i don't have access to it right now... we'll let that lie. However, I strongly disagree with the statement that the "omni-s" are a new concept in Mormonism. Unless you're considering the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the acceptance of the Bible, the teachings of Joseph Smith and every other prophet of the LDS movement "recent developments"... gdavies 22:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Gdavies, you are of course welcome to your opinion. You seem to be of a fairly "neo-orthodox" bent, which is fine with me. Still, you should read the article I linked above. I do agree though that this isn't the direction this article should go. CaliforniaKid 03:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Religious Persecution?

I'm not sure that the Religious Persecution template is appropriate. This article covers aspects of religious persecution, but it is not technically an article about religious persecution. Several of the sections describe types of opposition that cannot properly be termed persecution. Contrast with articles like Persecution of Christians or Persecution of Muslims. Perhaps Persecution of Mormons should be a separate article, and some of the information in the present article should be moved there. We could then provide a link to that article in this one, which would allow us to keep this one shorter (it's a whopping 70 KB right now). CaliforniaKid 05:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the new nav template either. It's ugly. CaliforniaKid 05:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

POV and Bias

The article reviews Christian bias towards Mormons but does not look at non-religious attacks on the religion, such as the South Park episode attacking the religion, and various websites that ridicule the faith based on logical grounds, not religious ones. This article seems to be very defensive, as if it was written almost entirely by Mormons.

• This article is the complete opposite of the subject matter. Biased towards Mormonism. Doh ! PalX 21:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Cited Statements

I have replaced the cited statements regarding the use of the hate speech term anti-mormon use by LDS Church Members and the LDS Church to refer to any critics of Mormonism or authors of books or other literature which generally explores LDS Culture. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am removing this statement in the lead:

In Utah, the term anti-mormon is considered a derogatory and denigrating term, implying spiritual uncleanliness, ignorance, and a reprobate mind.

My rationale is that the citation given for that sentence quotes two sources: one, a "cordial" Joseph Smith quote from 1844, and a Times and Seasons quote also from 1844. No Mormons lived in Utah at the time, so the citation certainly does not explain or support the idea that anti-mormon carries the stated connotations in present-day Utah. If the statement is to be restored, it must be supported (not just followed, but supported) with a citation from a reliable source. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The preceding sentence is also a concern for several reasons. Here's the sentence:

The term anti-mormon is often characterized by critics of Mormonisn to be a pejorative of hate, since LDS Church members are taught that opponents or critics of Mormonism are "servants of the Devil" or "doing Satan's work."

It's followed by a cite to a Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate quote from 1836. Here are the problems with that sentence:

• Verb tense: saying that "LDS Church members are taught" (note the present tense) requires support from modern sources that demonstrate a continuation of such teaching, not a single publication from 170 years ago.
• Weasel words and passive speech: "is often characterized by critics", "are taught". Who are the critics who characterize the term as "a pejorative of hate"? Citations please. Who teaches LDS Church members that opponents and critics of Mormonism are doing the devil's work? Citations please.
• Unbalanced POV: Are there any viewpoints that consider "anti-Mormon" not to be hate speech? If so, they should be cited too according to the relative weight of that viewpoint among the population of reliable sources.

Given these problems, the sentence should be fixed or deleted. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-mormon is a hate speech term. People living in utah labeled as such cannot find employment and are subjected to discrimination. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations, please. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I already placed citations with the Church's teachings and use of this term of hate. I can certainly dig up more of them from the Tanners websites and other sources. Stand by. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, the statement you just added cites FAIR, which states on its website, "FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice." The citation therefore does not support your edit, which talks about the use of the term by the church itself. Also, the FAIR citation refers to the street preachers who demonstrate outside of Temple Square during large church events, and does not support your assertion that the church (or even FAIR) labels "any group who are critical of the Church's teachings or who call into question the authenticity of its religious writings" and "any non-LDS group or research body who comments or writes about the Mormon Church or its teachings in an impartial manner, or religious groups who are critical of Mormon Doctrines or teachings" as hate groups. Please make a better effort not to go beyond what the citations support. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In case I'm not being clear, the very assertion that it is a pejorative or hate speech term needs to be supported with a citation. Someone other than Jeffrey Vernon Merkey needs to have publicly described it as such in a reliable source that you can cite. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Alan, I am at the offices today and I will have to run down these cites this evening. I do have several that characterizes the term as hate speech. FAIR calls it hate speech as well. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, Please address these questions regarding the term anti-mormon and we can go over these materials this evening.

• 1. Who besides Mormons and the LDS Church uses this term to describe published books, websites, groups, and people?
• 2. Who are the groups and individuals who are the targets of this term?
• 3. What does the Church official teach as doctrine related to groups and the use of this term?
• 4. What historical instances and situations have used this term and directed towards who?
• 5. How many times have editors on Wikipedia used the term to describe sources, other editors, groups, and publications?

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I see why #5 is relevant, though the other four questions are good to raise and discuss. Anyhow, while you're collecting sources, I'll go ahead and remove the problematic statements so the lead doesn't have unsupported information. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I know an academic acquaintance who works for FAIR, and they are neither LDS, Mormon, or resident in Utah. It's not just LDS that run that organization. He applies the term "anti-Mormon" to certain groups, though he doesn't apply it as broadly as some LDS may (as is discussed in the article). -SESmith 23:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, how do we get LDS editors to stop using the term in this project to identify sources or if it is used, how do we get it used in a neutral way? Let's start with the four questions. Alan, you start by addressing your views then SESmith can chime in. I would like to get some sort of understanding on how this term should be used. Personally, I think it needs to be confined to this article, and not spill over into others as a label. Let's figure out a way to erase the hatemonger connotations with the word. Alan, you go first .... Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)