Talk:Criticism of Mormonism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
February 2004 - December 2005 January - May 2006 May-June 2006 (includes mediation)

Contents 1 Merge? 2 Vote on Merging 2.1 Yes 2.2 No 3 Mediation closed 4 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism 5 Sensationalist Allegations, but no facts 6 Let's deal with the neutrality tag in this section 7 Racism / Priesthood denied to Black Members 8 Deleted References 9 Navigation 10 Criticism in what sense? 11 This article needs a good rewrite 12 Why "Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"? 13 Merge Criticism of Mormon missionaries? 13.1 Keep as Criticism of Mormon missionaries 13.2 Merge into Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 13.3 Merge into Criticism of Mormonism 13.4 Other 13.5 No

[edit] Merge?

I stepped back from mediating the discussion over this article, as one of the main participants seems to have withdrawn from the debate. Since then there has been a lot of discussion, but what sticks out like a sore thumb to me is that the discussion has become about how best to express LDS doctrine rather than about the criticisms themselves, which rather defeats the supposed object of the article. And as others have pointed out, there seems to be an abundance of articles addressing criticisms of Mormonisms already. I vote for some sort of merge. David L Rattigan 22:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

David, thank you for your efforts to mediate for our group. It is a failure that we lost one of our editors. When that happens we all lose an opportunity to improve not only WIKI, but oursleves. Thanks again and I hope to work with you again. Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks David. I think a merge may be in order. DavidBailey 01:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

One person who did have a good point is Edward, who I quote here.

This article should not be a criticism of Mormonism, but a list or a summary of the criticisms of Mormonism. If we simply stick with that we will be fine. But everyone wants to write a dissertation. They want this to be more than an encyclopedia article. It shouldn't be hard to write an article that conforms to NPOV, and that represents the criticisms of Mormonism without itself being a criticism of Mormonism. There are many websites, and many areas where people can get more information on these criticism. We should link to them, both pro and con, and let this article act like an introduction. Edward Lalone 02:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the article has a use, if confined to this scope. DavidBailey 01:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I still get stuck on criticism by whom? Catholics and Protestants will have a decidedly different list of criticisms. Some criticisms may be capable of just stating and moving on; others will need explanation and an opportunity to provide a rejoinder. Too often criticisms are based on the sensationalized viewpoint of those who don't understand Mormonism, but believe they "know the truth" about it.

Further, there are a plethora of articles about why others disagree with Mormonism and specific areas of Mormonism. I still think it would be better to have just one article about criticisms, not anti-Mormonism, but criticisms and then refer to all of the individual articles about the list. I see no reason for an article about Mormonism and Christianity and this article; they are redundant. We may be saying very similar things, but whatever happens some articles need to be merged and/or deleted. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We must remember that the article itself should not be a criticism of Mormonism. Wikipedia and its editors has no place in determining the merits of a criticism, or whether a criticism is true or false. Nor can Wikipedia act as an arbitrator of what Mormonism and its critics believe. The scope needs to be limited, and it needs to list the criticisms. The section on Criticism of the Book of Mormon should be the format of the article (i.e. a concise summary of the criticism, and a link to articles that deal with the criticism).

I also think the standard for the main article should be that 1) there for inclusion in the main article a criticism must have a Wikipedia article dealing with that specific criticism, and that the article 2) be NPOV. When an article meets that criteria it should be linked to the main article which lists various criticism and provides a brief summary of the criticism. If a criticism cannot warrant a full article it should not be included. It seems to me that all encyclopedias follow the standard of "is there enough interest in an article for it to be published."

The same is true here. We could list every criticism of Mormonism and every response to those criticisms but "who cares." I would argue only a few people who would be interested in these kinds of articles are those who don't want to host their own websites but think of Wikipedia as a good place to get their POV across. I could write hundreds of articles about Mormonism, and its doctrines and beliefs in an effort to advance a pro-Mormon position but it would be just as wrong as a person who disagrees with Mormonism to write a bunch of articles and to use Wikipedia to be a tool to spread their views. If I want to do that I can host my own website. I think, "if it doesn't have a wide enough appeal it should not be included." I really support merging the articles and creating a format with a Main Article Heading for each criticism that is listed. Let's at least take a simple vote of where people stand. Edward Lalone 19:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: So you would rather we pretend that criticism of Mormonism is something that doesn't exist? Or sandwich it into a section on the Mormonism page? The point is, this has enough material to be an article on its own, if every article could be a section, then we would have just have one giant article. Why not a giant article on Christianity? Many reasons... For example, it would be unweildly to merge Criticism of the Catholic Church into the main Catholic Church article. This is why we have a seperate article to expand on the criticisms, instead of sandwiching it into the main article. Superbeatles 17:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Visor, could you explain the difference between Criticism of Mormonism and Mormonism and Christianity? I may be missing something. The only group critical of Mormonism is Christians. The articles seem to be reflections of each other. My biggest concern is having repetitive articles that address the same issues. If an article is going to stand alone, it has to be so clearly specific that it does not evolve into what we have now; repetition and redundancy.

Comment: The one article is comparing the two, this one is merely reporting on the criticism of Mormonism. What about the DNA section? Are you saying that science is Christian too, since some scientific research is critical of Mormonism? That is absurd. This article introduces many criticisms, some of them from Christians, some not. Just because the views cataloged in an article do not agree with your own does not mean that they are POV. Superbeatles 17:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I see no reason why this article should have anything done to it, I vote that we collaboratively edit it. Superbeatles

Comment: This page should be merged with the LDS page, but pared down to eliminate the bias. I don't think a separate page on criticisms is warranted, this reads more like a dissertation than an encyclopaedic article.--Insbordnat 14:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice someone has said "The only group critical of Mormonism is Christians." No. Atheists may well be critical of it, and in fact anyone generally critical or religions may well be. And many other groups who are critical of any religion other than their own. Oh, and others who group it with Christianity as a whole and are critical of that. So in fact many many people are critical of it, or potentially can be, not just Christians. Prophaniti 03:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It may have been better to state that the ones who are most active are other Christians. It is understood that all the others have been critics, but it is also apparent that they simply do not expend the effort or time with criticism. When you attend general conference in Salt Lake City, one will only see one group present to atagonize and insult LDS entering the center...those who call themselves Christians. It will be fair that in recent years there has been a wonderful group of fellow Christians that disdain the methods of the aforementioned troublemakers. They are there to welcome LDS and wish them a good conference. By their actions one would say they have a far better understanding of Jesus Christ and His message. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on Merging

Do you support merging Criticism of Mormonism, Mormonism and Christianity, and Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Anti-Mormonism into one main article?

[edit] Yes

• Edward Lalone 19:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Val42 03:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• DavidBailey 03:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC) (except Anti-Mormonism is considerably different and I don't think it should be combined or we're going to end up with a REALLY long article, unless a lot of content is removed.)

What I was thinking was having one main article, and have anti-Mormonism and other similiar articles be sub articles. Anti-Mormonism by definition is a form of criticism of Mormonism and should be treated as a sub-article. What do you guys think? Edward Lalone 23:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Definitely; It also would not surprise me to find there are other articles with the same subject matter. Anti-Mormonism could be included; it is distinctly different, but is more about form than content.

I think Anti-Mormonism should be included as a short summary with a link to the main anti-Mormonism article. I think that the main article should act as an introduction to the various forms and types of criticisms, and then link to those forms and types. Edward Lalone 23:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No

I am opposed to merging the articles into one article for a number of reasons. I like the idea of having a main article with summaries and pointers to more specialized articles. Having everything in one article would cause lots of problems, and you could pretty much guarentee a permanent POV tag on the page because somebody thinks some section is biased. I would love to see at least one of these articles w/o a POV tag. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The point here is to merge them into one article, and then to have the main article be a summary article. I don't think that the articles should be merged unless there are going to be sub-articles. That's the point I've been trying to make. The more articles, about specific topics, and the less commentary in the main article the less POV is going to be found in the articles. Not merging them only allows people to create an article for the very purpose of advancing a POV (See Democrat Party (United States) and Democratic Party (United States). There is no doubt what purpose the Democrat Party article serves. The same is true of these mini-articles that only seek to advance a POV. People visit them, and aren't able to get a broad picture of the topic. That's simply not right. That is why I think there should be a single article, and that article should have a summary of the criticisms with links. I personally also would whether have one article have a permanent POV tag then 50 with permanent POV tags. This article will not lose it's POV tag, unless it is deleted or merged. If it is merged with a broader article there are going to be more editors and it is going to as a result of the number of editors be harder for someone to impose a POV on the article. Edward Lalone 00:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• I do not agree with the merge of the articles. I see them as completely seperate ideas. I see Criticism of Mormonism and Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as merge-able, but not Anti-Mormonism or Mormonism and Christianity. -Visorstuff 00:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong No: The article on Mormonism and Christianity has little to do with the other articles. That goal of the first article is to avoid polemics, apologetics, etc., but to explain and compare the two religious traditions with persons who are unfamiliar with one or both. Any "Anti", "Criticism" (in the negative sense), or "Controversy" elements are muted. RelHistBuff 09:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add something. I would agree that the doctrinal elements of the Criticism of Mormonism could be merged with the Mormonism and Christianity article. In fact I was already preparing an expansion of the doctrinal differences section. But I would like to see any additions of doctrinal elements to just "note" the differences, not to "criticize". I intended to write on each side's point-of-view and without counter-responses. However, there are a number of sections in Criticism of Mormonism that are not appropriate for Mormonism and Christianity. For example the DNA and archaeology or the listing of critics of Mormonism. These sections could stay where they are or be merged somewhere else.Sorry, that was me who wrote the above. RelHistBuff 15:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong No: I agree with RelHistBuff above. Superbeatles 17:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

NO!!: The critisism of the LDS Church is not fact and should not be printed in the main article. User:Webwiz4u52

NO Well, Webwiz, that is your POV. There is plenty of valid criticism of the Church. You are basically saying that anyone who says anything critical of the church is lying. Where I come from, you really stop and think long and hard before tarring people with the brush of being liars. It does not necessarily need to be on the main LDS page, but it needs to be in Wikipedia though, and should be linked from the main page. Nirigihimu 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

NO If this article were to merge with the article about mormonism alone it would send the message that mormonism is not a legitimate religion. The Westboro Baptist Church is considered a domestic terrorist group and that is why it has criticism in its article. Although Mormonism is not a terror cell and it can not be considered an more false or true than any other religion on earth. User:talib 72 22:40, 14 July 1006

NO These distinctions are important in order to differentiate between scholarly criticism of Mormonism and bias of Mormonism.

[edit] Mediation closed

I am closing the mediation case now, as A.J.A. seems to have disappeared, and you are doing fine without a mediator. Might pop back to this page as a regular user. Cheers, all. David L Rattigan 15:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The mediation is now archived, as this page was getting pretty long. David L Rattigan 15:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism

--Greasysteve13 09:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sensationalist Allegations, but no facts

I just deleted the following paragraph:

Some young men who enter the mission come home early and recieve professional councelling afterwards for depression and various social or mental behavior, and in some cases commit suicide. This is most common in the western states of the U.S. where going on a mission may be culturally expected. [1] [2]

What I find egregious about the allegations is the complete lack of fact and a demonstrated lack of the material cited. First, the Garrett Smith book, if one took the time to read it, never provides any allegations or evidence that this young man suffered from depression as the result of his mission. Quite the contrary, during his mission he served honorably and well without any significant bouts of depression. Second, the book from Mission to Madness is a biography on Joseph Smiths last (I think) son. He served a mission for the RLDS church in Utah. His despression and later eventually resided in an asylum was never demonstrated to be caused from his mission.

This is the kind of unmitigated crap that invalidates all appropriate criticism. Some twit takes two titles and then makes up a story about how missions cause young men and woemn to go mad! No basis in fact, no basis in reality...just two titles of two books, left unread by the accuser, and viola, presto, criticism in a can for the mindless minions that give all critics the label of biased, Anti-Mormons.

If you haven't the the drift, I am more than just mildly ticked. For this idiot to take a disease like depression and then belittle it while smearing the good name of two men that suffered horribly from the disease is beyond acceptable. You should be banned from WIKI. Advice: start writing for the National Enquirer or the Star. You have no business editing for an encyclopedia.

I am deleting the entire edit until it can be discussed on the discussion page after I have cooled off. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering why the charge of "plagiarism" is not broached in this article. I actually have a source for this: "Eccentrics: A Study of Sanity and Strangeness by David Weeks & Jamie James." On p.115 it states that The Book of Mormon "bears a strong resemblance to a romance published 25 years earlier by Solomon Spaulding." I have not seen other scholarship regarding this but I am interested in seeing this (to my mind) serious allegation discussed, supported or dismissed. There is a link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Spaulding —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gbruno (talk • contribs) 12:13, 14 August 2006.

I suggest you read the Spaulding manuscript, and then try to find some similarity with the Book of Mormon. It was a believable claim as long as no one had access to the manuscript. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 12:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The two have very little in common. The Jade Knight 03:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's deal with the neutrality tag in this section

First of all, is it the entire article that is not neutral, such that it warrants a tag being at the top of the article; or is there a section that the tag should be specified to?

Then, once that's resolved, let's deal with the issues right here. List them, because from the previous talks, it doesn't seem like anyone is bringing up any specific points dealing with the entire article in general. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's my two centimes. The article is divided into three main sections. The first is really just polemics. In an encyclopedia, the issues should just be simply compared and described as is done in Mormonism and Christianity. The first section is redundant. The second section are summaries of three different articles. The second section is redundant. The third section is a list of anti-Mormons, but there is already an article on Anti-Mormonism. The third section is redundant. So I bring up the question of not only getting rid of the neutrality tag, but should this article be removed altogether? RelHistBuff 08:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racism / Priesthood denied to Black Members

I am surprised that this article does not include information about how the Mormon Church denied giving the priesthood to black members for most of its history, only to grant it in the 70's (I could be wrong on the date). I am not an expert, so I won't add anything to the article, but I personally find an inconsistency between the LDS church's position that the President or "Prophet" is inspired by God, yet for many years denied equality to all races of people. Admitedly, that is my POV - but in any case, I think this article is incomplete without mentioning something on this topic. 67.120.92.138 07:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is about criticism of the LDS church. Unless you can find some quotes on it, it isn't appropriate in this article. Jaxad0127 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems is the vast number of articles about Mormonism. You might want to look at Blacks and Mormonism, but it is also mentioned in several other articles.

Of course you might also want to ensure that everyone is aware how God denied the priesthood to everyone in the world but members of one, small tribe in Israel; a rather ethnocentric thing for God to do. Even worse, of all the people in the world God only chose one group to be his "covenant" people; obviously a very, very, racist God. In addition, you might also add some information about the sexist actions of Jesus Christ and early Christianity where only men who had hands laid on their head and were ordained with the priesthood could officiate.

Interestingly, throughout history the priesthood has always been reserved for a select few. It was not until the relatively recent past that Protestant Christianity decided that anyone who "believed" held the priesthood. Before you go painting "others" as racist, you might want to have a good conversation with God. Let me know how it goes. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that anyone thats baptised in the LDS church is adopted into one or more of the tribes. And about the curse put on Cain.... Jaxad0127 18:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And the interpretation of the Curse of Cain during the duration of slavery in the United States prevented many "Christians" in the South from even seeking to convert those of sub-Saharan African descent (a.k.a. "blacks). And those blacks that did convert to Christianity in the South, had to have their own churches because they weren't welcomed in to the same buildings as the "Christian" whites. One of the reasons for the violent conflict against Mormons in Missouri was because of the favorable treatment that the LDS Church had toward blacks and former slaves, whether or not they were ordained to the priesthood. (Though at least Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis were ordained to the priesthood during Joseph Smith's lifetime, and some descendants of Elijah Abel afterwards.) Val42 19:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Jax, I am sorry if you interpreted my statements above to be a criticism of Christianity. The ANON's type of comments above is rather common rhetoric by Christians critical of the LDS church. Unfortunately, I think they level the criticism without an understanding of the history of the priesthood or God's interactions with mankind from the beginning. Were Mormons racist? The history speaks for itself and the evidence says they were not. Can their doctrine be interpreted as racist? Yes, but in doing so we would also have to condemn the history of Christianity. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't take it that way. I was just adding appropriate info. But I can see how someone could take it that way. Jaxad0127 22:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted References

I deleted two references. This article is supposed to be about Criticism of Mormonism and not anit-Mormonism. The sites in question are base anit-Mormonism becuase they exaggerate and sensationalize lies. As a member of the church for decades and having served in numerous capcities, I can tell you that never have I ever experiences or heard counsel that an individual who interviews another for a temple recommend interview is standing in for Jesus.

If we are going to attempt to have a legitimate article it must focus on true, academic, and theological criticism. Conversely, it must rigidly resist all the trappings of anti-Mormonism. The entire article needs to be purged of those sensationalistic lies that are so common. The two sites don't even resemble Mormonism.

I would still bring up the same point I have discussed before to which no one has ever responded. Exactly which Christianity are we using as the standard? If we are going to use standard of the majority of Christians, then the critique must be written from Catholicism. If we are going to take the minority opinion, then let it be Protestant. If we are going to take even the smaller minority, then let it be Evangelical. However, to attempt to write from all three positions without any clarification from which perspective one is speaking, the article turns into complete POV. Many of the critiques listed can be leveled against Catholicism. The Evangelical critiques are soundly refuted by the Catholic theologians. We are going to have to do better. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your honorable experiences do not invalidate the disappointing experiences of others. I restored the reference [3] to the experience of an LDS returned missionary, because personal experience is as valid as the best empirical evidence used for any academic endeavor. Occasionally I have seen an enthusiastic church leader, maybe also a convert, unwittingly step out of bounds (sometimes per D&C 121:39). However, your reference to “standing in for Jesus” does not strike me as terribly out of bounds. So, I asked a local LDS bishop about this (out of context) and he agreed that the phrase “the interviewer represents Jesus” has merit. I would agree that this returned missionary’s lead in, “members are told”, is an exaggeration because this is not a common exclamation in LDS interviews – although it is certainly possible, particularly in response to a question about an LDS bishop's authority in such an activity.

The experiences shared by this returned missionary are unfortunate, but entirely believable, and should not be categorized as lies. I reread the web page in question, and noted that several other proclaimed members (or former members) identified with the experiences related by this returned missionary, which strengthens the value of this reference and it's believability.

Does your accusation of "sensationalistic lies" meet the high standards of church etiquette and academic discussion that you advocate? Are you out of bounds? I whole heartedly recommend behavior described in D&C 121:45 - charity towards all men.

The standard that we should follow here is defined precisely in the introduction for this topic, which is that "criticism is an all-encompassing term referring to critical scrutiny of Mormon beliefs or practices, with reasons ranging from academic interest, to religious motivations, to outright prejudice." I suppose that you would classify this returned missionary's statements as "outright prejudice", and you would have a good case.

You are welcome to insert “citation needed” and raise questions about “POV”, as a means of exercising editorial privilege. However, sometimes this strategy might backfire, as when an appropriate citation is provided that makes a much stronger case than the original article.

The invitation for "all-encompassing" criticism (above) answers your last question about standards. Now you have a response.

I invite you to call for mediation, if necessary. Otherwise, thank you for explaining your position and giving discussion a chance. --DustOfTheEarth 20:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to ask questions "out of context" and then use it as a basis upon which to formulate a position. I would suggest that this form of honorable, pesonal analysis may produce incorrect deductions and should be discontinued. Of course, I am sure that subterfuge works well when attempting to design a specific POV. I think the statement used by tabloid reporters is "When the news is not fit to print do whatever it takes to sell it". WIKI is not for tabloid news stories.

When using a personal experience it should be stated as such, which you did not do. On WIKI, which you seem to possess a high degree of familiarity and should know better, we strive to produce reputable references. If you want to use a private expereince do so, but state that it is the viewpoint of one individual.

I am also surprised that you would threaten "this strategy might backfire" of seeking reputable references. I do not edit to ensure a personal POV, but rather to ensure that WIKI is as complete a public encyclopedia as possible. If you have more reputable resources use them. If not, I suggest you keep that quality of a threat to yourself. In the words of that little guy that stood up to the playground bully, "either put up or shutup". My statement should not be taken personally, but it should be interpreted as my extreme dislike of threats on WIKI. It is completely unacceptable.

Also, your seeming desire to inflate this into a need for mediation surprising. I am confused by the "invitation". Either you make a crusade of being "right" and only your opinion is acceptable or you feel that having mediation is a disagreeable experience. For your personal clarification: there is not any one person who is always right and I promise to let you know when it is the right time for mediation. This not a win-lose proposition, nor is mediation. We are striving for a win-win compromise and if we can't get to that end point on such a simple point, you and I both are not fit to be editors. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Dust. I work for the LDS Church Education System, and not very enthuiastic about this citation. However, I recently had an interview with a member of my Stake Presidency and he instructed, "... answer as though you were speaking to the Lord". As you apparently know, truth defies context, but context makes truth hard to see. Your reference to "charity" is excellent, because charity is the foundation of the freedoms and tolerance that make this kind of forum possible. The "tone" of comments made here (and in citations) is left to the interpretation of the reader, and reveals something about the reader's personality (e.g. charitable or coersive). I choose to interpret your invitation for mediation as a simple diplomatic gesture, which implicitly supposes a willingness to negotiate and compromise. Thank you, Dust, for sticking to principle, avoiding both name calling and taking the last word. Best wishes. --LifeOfLearning 16:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navigation

This article starts by stating that any criticism of Mormonism is criticism of the LDS Church but there is no link to the article Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be found anywhere in the article. This article seems to be a bit mellow. I am not an expert on Mormonism but there seems to be a lot missing. What about social issues? Women in the church? The evidences and prophecies as presented by Joseph Smith and the testimony of the witnesses? Plural marriage? Finanicial issues within the church? This is just the tip of the iceburg.

I can see that there are subjects that are dealt with in other articles but to have this article and not prominently display at least a link to these other articles and other issues seems more than a little remiss. From an outsider POV of someone who has just stumbled upon this web of articles - it is VERY confusing. I was looking at the discussion back in June and I must say that it needs to be readdressed.

The articles are too big to put all together. My suggestion would be a main article and then sub articles stemming off this main article. This is a major issue for the religion. The main controversy article needs to have a link on the main navigation tool for the Latter Day Saint Movement. To hide the controversy surrounding this religion deep within articles is in itself POV. I would also suggest a small navigation tool specifically for the controversy articles to be placed at the top of each article allowing a reader to easily find their way around. Lucy 00:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism in what sense?

This article seems to be very poorly-defined. This is the first time I've taken a good look at it, and I can't tell what kind of criticism this article is even about. The word criticism has many senses. In the academic world, it means a sort of criticalanalysis, that doesn't necessarily make any value judgments. If this is the sense this article is going—and I doubt it is, based on the content—then I suggest it be renamed Mormon criticism. If, on the other hand, this article is about the sense of criticism that means disagreement, then it seems like a hopeless WP:NPOV violation, because it separates contrary points of view into a separate article from the topic. If the purpose of this article is just to show how people disagree with particular Mormon topics or ideas, then the article has to go, no questions asked—not negotiable, according to Jimbo Wales. That sort of thing belongs in the article about the particular topic for which there is disagreement, such as Godhead (Mormonism). COGDEN 20:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I believe the term you are looking for is POV fork. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 21:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I also concur. What is the next step and who will take it? Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that merging this article back into Mormonism, possibly with parts going into Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, would be the only POV-neutral move. The controversies article at least has the potential to be NPOV because it describes events rather than viewpoints. [Edit: I looked at the article, and it needs serious work as well. Perhaps these projects should be undertaken in tandem?] However, I am not sure that it will be possible to merge this entire article into Mormonism, given its considerable length. Some editing down might be in order for this one.

Personally, I try to stay away from articles that are religious in nature for fear of introducing POV myself (I am not religious, but have difficulty accepting the presentation of religious beliefs as fact). Still, I would be happy to help out where I can. Looking at your profile, you look like an excellent candidate for the job - would you would like to spearhead this one? --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 03:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is about criticism of Mormonism, in the sense of skepticism. Other examples of "Criticism of" articles include Islam, Christianity, atheism, and Hinduism. Cogden, just because you think the article is disorganized is not grounds for removing the article. Please Be Bold! and fix up the parts that need help. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs a good rewrite

Now that I look at it, it says nothing about actual criticisms of Mormonism, but rather differences between Mormonism and Christianity. This will be changed soon (by yours truly). --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! A.J.A. 16:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why "Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"?

I understand that this article may be about mormonism generally, and the other about specifics on the LDS Church. But you have a big picture of Lorenzo Snow in the article, so it seems to me that this article is really mostly about the LDS Church, and considering that other branches of the Latter Day Saint movement are not really controversial, why not just bring in the info from the other article. The other article is more a list than anything else, and it seems pretty hard to maintain so many LDS related articles. Please note, this is not a request to merge all LDS articles dealing with LDS issues, just these two. I am for keeping Anti-Mormon, and suggest if we keep separate articles having the Controveries article renamed to List of Criticisms of Mormonisn because thats basically what it is. My appologies to StormRider as well. Bytebear 23:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not just the LDS Church that's controversial. The whole movement is. Most everything has been criticized somehow. That's why the articles says "Mormonism." Jaxad0127 00:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a category root page in the making. It's designed to link to other articles, not discuss them. The bottom part of the page in question was deleted a few times and always returned. It doesn't really belong. By the way, controversy is only the same as criticism to a Mormon in this case. They are very different. Anon166 06:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't non Latter-day Saint groups be offended being criticized for beliefs of the mainsteam church? I think Lorenzo Snow has no bearing on the Community of Christ for example. Same with the mainstream church being criticized for Warren Jeffs. It just doesn't make sense to combine the issues. I dont mind having a category of controversial issues (to replace the list article). I also don't mind if this article is expanded using proper formatting, but the article is going to be extremely long given all the controveries that exist out there. I prefer the category page myself. Bytebear 07:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So what if they are offended? I don't remember Wikipedia having a rule that says we aren't allowed to offend religious groups. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Byte, it is one of the difficulties with the term Mormonism. We have a couple of options: Church specific criticisms may be registered on the respective church page (there is nothing unique in these articles that is not already found in other articles) or simply identify which group is being critiqued so that other groups are not tainted.

There are also problems on the other side, who and why some groups find reason for criticism. The secular world is one thing and much of the critique against the Book of Mormon is also said against the Bible. In the religious world, there is a significant difference between an Evangelical and a Catholic. ANON166 is correct; criticism and controversy are two different things (even for a Mormon). I think you will find that this article was intended to be focused on the academic arena and the research findings covered there. It was not to be the criticisms of other religious groups. The Controversy page is not an article and is not intended to be. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My commetns to Bytebear earlier were about "Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (mostly). Just focussing on controversies/criticisms of one part of the movement would be POV. We need to do it for all parts , not just the largest group. Jaxad0127 15:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In time it will get sorted out, but I do agree that the "general criticism" part on the end of the controversies must go. As far as offending people goes, if Mormons can't be allowed to access information on controversies, then I think you've revealed far too much about Mormonism already. Anon166 16:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I see there is also Criticism of Mormon missionaries which should be merged into Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I can see the need for two articles, Criticsm of Mormonism which should only cover issues dealing with the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and generally theological issues of the early church (including polygamy and splinter groups). The other article, Controversies Regarding LDS Church should focus more on social issues, like women in the church, the missionary program, etc., as well as specific LDS doctrines that don't fall under Smith's reign or accepted by most splinter groups, like , blacks and the priesthood, early Utah polygamy (excluding splinter group issues), temple rituals, etc. I think if we define each issue as either an LDS issue or a Mormonism issue, it will go far in clarifying these two articles. Oh, and can we vote on the missionary article? Bytebear 20:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Still, if a criticiscm applies to more than one sect, it should be applied to all those sects, and not just the largest(/most influential/etc). Applying it to just one would be POV. — Jaxad0127 01:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Criticism of Mormon missionaries?

Please comment on whether to let this article live or die.

[edit] Keep as Criticism of Mormon missionaries

[edit] Merge into Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

MERGE - Other Mormon faiths do not really have a missionary program Bytebear 20:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• MERGE No sense having lots of little articles floating around, and it isn't such a big subject it requires its own article. --Karafias ^{Talk • Contributions} 09:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Merge Obviously, anyone can see that the two are vastly unrelated. It belongs with criticism, or on its own, and it may be linked from controversies, but not "merged" into a general list of linked controversies. Anon166 02:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge into Criticism of Mormonism

[edit] Other

MERGE — The article could easily become a subsection of either article, and the current state of the album makes me doubt that it should stand on its own. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 11:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge - there is little value to the little article. Also, if this fails, it should be renamed LDS missionaries not Mormon missionaries. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

MERGE — Criticism of Mormon missionaries with Mormon missionaries and Criticism of Mormonism with the article that best covers that issue (i.e. Plural Marriage for issues relating to that topic).

Although not policy, here is a Wikipedia essay on the subject:

There are two main forms of criticism in a Wikipedia article on a certain topic. The most obvious is the criticism in a section, often titled "Criticism", found in some articles (for example Igor Stravinsky#Criticism). A second format is the inclusion of criticism into the article's other sections or introduction.

Another format of criticism is including the criticism of a topic in the articles about the critics of that topic, or in articles describing books or other media criticising the topic. Separate articles consisting entirely of criticism of a topic are not allowed.

"Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has or should have its own wikipedia article."

This is especially true of the missionary articles. See Wikipedia:Criticism for more details. Bytebear 00:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

MERGE Criticism of Mormonism into Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or re-name article to Controversies regarding Mormonism. I concur that a separate article dealing with criticism of a specific topic is inappropriate on Wikipedia. Edward Lalone 08:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No

• There's no need to merge this article. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• These articles are still evolving - too early to merge. DustOfTheEarth 05:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)