![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think this section illustrates my objection to the title of this article rather well: either the article will end up with severe NPOV issues in having to decide who's an Anti-Mormon, and who's not, or will have to go so far out of it's way to address the issue, that the specific title would be too narrow. I suggest once again that the rewrite should give serious consideration to re-scoping and re-titling the article. Alai 06:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
There's no reason to make them separate articles. I certainly haven't said "make no reference to or treatment of" Anti-Mormonism, the article should clearly do so. But are you really planning to confine yourself to Anti-Mormons that self-describe? That's certainly not been the gist of the discussion on the topic to date, or what the current draft rewrite says. I proposed a page move about six weeks ago, see the talk page of the parent article, as well as the comments above, so while I didn't perform the move myself, I certainly don't feel it was exactly done "over-hastily". Alai 16:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Anti-Mormon page needs serious help. As most of ya'll have noted, neutrallity on this topic is difficult for active Mormons. Well, as a Scholarly Christian that is Anti-Mormon for logical, historic, & theological reasons, I will try to help ya'll clean up your anti-mormon page. But, you will have to give me some lee way. I am new to Wikipedia, and I may make some blunders along the way. I believe Visorstuff fixed my fix on the First Patriarch already. Thanks - My fix, fixed the error and added a new one. Wayne
Rather I am the more scholarly Christian type. In my theology, I do not have the time to go after a fight. Altho' I would not consider preaching the Truth to be in the same realm as physical violence. Critic in the sence of scholarly disagreement, yes. Critic in the sence of theological difference, yes. But, I am not an 'activist'.
However, I am presenting a paper on Mormon Soteriology, over 20 reference works (I think 10 of those were differing forms of a Joseph Smith). Whew! Talk about difficult. Trying to figure out who is who in Mormon history/theology takes a specialized degree!
OK - SR, what gives? what was merely POV? Not that I could document it, but I have. Mormon history seemed to have elicited pain in you rather quickly. As for my objectivity? I have not assumed that you do not know anything about Mormons. But, if you don't know nothin' about them, I can get you some tracks by Chick . . .
And yes, that was a cheap shot. Considering that I have struggled through 2 different Joseph Fielding Smiths in the last week, and I have never read a Chick track . . . and it is late, I was being gracious. ;) So, why was it not NPOV? Especially when compared to the article itself? Regards, Wayne El guero
"Please let's not think we are the sole possessors of the truth." Do you really want me to answer that?
This forum asked for help, I provided that assistance. You were offended, could this reflect some of what the Mormon definition of 'anti-Moromonism' is referring to?
If the term is a Mormon only term, then the lead sentance should say so. Otherwise, the article is NPOV.
Instead the article starts out by defining anti-Mormonism as a LEGAL opposition to Mormonism. That places law abiding Christians in the same league as someone defacing Mormon temples. That is a POV. Unless, we are legally supposed to deface temples. Did I miss that ammendment? El guero
SR,
"I was offended by your reference to only Mormons having a problem with neutrality."
SHOW ME where I said that. I think you said that.
SR,
I did not say "only Mormons having a problem with neutrality." But, now that YOU have said it for me, would you like me to agree with you?
I would prefer to disagree with you and stay by my words rather than to assume the connotation that your words would carry.
The more active one is in their Religion the more difficult it is to be neutral on matters of faith. 68.116.136.72
SR
If 'Bozo' is your best shot, you need to get a life. Ad hominem attacks are beneath real scholars. It is evident that you do not wish this article to abide by the stated NPOV policy. That is a sad reflection upon you and those that attempt real scholarship here on wiki.
SR,
I really do not know why you are so touchy. "Before I go further, please understand that I am a bit more touchy than many of my associates and friends (on both sides)." But, you have attempted no dialogue and have only used diatribe. I would expect that is why you end up feeling hurt by others as they attempt to deal with sensitive issues.
Friend, I wish you luck. But, you should notice that my usage of 'you' and 'your' was significantly less than your usage of the terms, because I was trying not to add fuel to your fire.
You have been hurt by people. But, that was not my fault. Nor, have I said anything that deserved the diatribe that you threw at me.
(unsigned by User:66.169.151.165)
EL G -- you wrote: "Instead the article starts out by defining anti-Mormonism as a LEGAL opposition to Mormonism" Umm. I'm missing the point here. How much anti-Semitism, or anti-black or anti-catholic opposition is illegal. Not much. Not today. Perhaps activism was more illegal historically, but again, I'm missing your point. Criticism and active activism against are two seperate topics. I disagree with Catholic teachings, but I do not go out and burn Rosaries, or preach over the pulpit as to why they are all going to hell, pugatory or whatever. If the anon who is still responding and EL G the same person, then this discussion is not only fruitless, but you seem to purposefully be trying to keep the conversation alive. Let's move on. - Visorstuff 00:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I second Visorstuff's suggestion to move on. Any discussion here should be about the content of the article, not about each other. As far as the definition of "anti-Mormonism" for purposes of this article, please read the proposal to merge this article with others elsewhere on this Talk page. It's all been hashed out before.
Forgive me for straying from the subject of this article for a moment, but this looks like another golden opportunity to encourage anyone who wants to contribute significantly to use a registered username, which not required, is part of Wikipedia:Etiquette. And just as a favor to me, I'd rather see StormRider called by his full username instead of SR, as those initials first made me think of another user who, as far as I know, has never contributed to any of the Mormonism-related articles. Thanks everyone. Wesley 04:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm still very unclear as to the exact definition of the term "Anti-Mormon". As a result, much of the rest of the article is a bit fuzzy to me. Much of it applies to groups that could ostensibly by called "exmormon". So, I thought I'd start another heading in this Talk page to specifically address this crucial topic. Yesterday I posted a much longer post here, but after I thought about it, I've cut it down.
The way the article is written right now, it seems that the difference between an "Anti-Mormon" and a "Critic" boils down to this: Anti-Mormons make their views public, while Critics generally keep their mouths shut.
I'm not convinced this is a good criteria. Can we discuss other possible definitions?
Personally, I still think there Exmormons, Critics, and Anti-Mormons are all in the same pot, with the term "Anti-Mormon" used to pejoratively label obnoxious critics. KevinM 20:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The bottom line is that the term exists. We should use cultural norms - so the article needs to be "anti-mormon." it will eventually be written, may as well define it similar to anti-semetism, anti-catholic, etc.
Second, perhaps i need to rework the term/definition. Its not that anti-mormon activists (I'd rather use the term activists and anti-mormon publications than anti-mormons or anti-mormon literature - as that is how it shows up in scholarly work) are public (although that is a part)- it is that they hate and then do something about it. much like those who are against those of other faiths or races. If I personally don't like jews, that is one thing, but if I'm anti-semetic, that's another. it states that i'm engaged in activity of some sort. does that make sense? - Visorstuff 17:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Rsduhamel posted the following on Talk:Opposition to Mormonism:
I redirected him to this rewrite page and I'd hoped that he'd express this view on this page. I hope that he won't mind me copying his comment to this page; It is very good and very relevant.
Let me summarize what I get out of his comments: anti-Mormons are those who protest and picket in ways that are, sometimes to often, loud, abusive and (to the people they are addressing) sacriligeous; and sometimes sacriligeous actions. I'd like to add that this has historically been much more abusive, up to beating, tar-and-feathering, and killing of the objects of their hate. I think that using these two sentences (or significantly similary) would work as the basis of a definition of "anti-Mormons". But do we spell it with or without a hyphen?
Those who disagree doctrinally, whether being truthful or not, should be put in a different category/article. Val42 19:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I made some edits to the article, but they were minor. I'd like to address the issue of structural organization of this article. It doesn't have a clear structural organization. I think that it should be organized either historically or by the sub-classes of anti-mormon (that is still being debated). If organized historically (which I prefer), it should be about what occurred at each location that prompted the moves, including the Extermination Order in Missouri. It should include how splinter sects that remained in the Mississippi region were treated as well as what happenned to the main body that later settled in Utah. It should then cover Johnson's Army, the Mountain Meadow Massacre (while inexcusable was a reaction to anti-mormonism), polygamy and other things. This can lead in to modern anti-mormonism, which borrows from (dubious) earlier sources, the semi-annual protests at Temple Square (and surrounding areas) and the very vocal persons who used bullhorns on the Main Street Plaza. Val42 02:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
In reading the original article, I noticed that the sections on Doctrinal Opposition, and on Actual and Alleged Doctrinal Differences, were rather disorganized and one-sided. These sections are mirrored in this rewrite by the "Anti-Mormon Tactics and Trends" section, which is undeveloped at present. I am unqualified to make any statements about this topic, but I would like to suggest a structure and system for addressing the topic.
The attacks upon Mormonism which this segment intends to address are of two kinds - logical and organizational. The logical attacks attempt to disprove the claims of Mormonism; the organizational attacks seek to make the practice of Mormonism inconvenient. These are related, but fundamentally different; I suggest that the topic be divided into two topics along these lines.
The section which addresses logical attacks upon Mormonism should break these attacks down along logical lines. I think that the section on opposition logic should be divided into at least three sub-sections:
I agree they should be split up, but not how The Digital Gabeg suggests. For example, I think that drawing a link between the Spaulding manuscript or Ethan Smith's View to the Hebrews have been sufficiently debunked, however, they are still popular arguments. So showing which ones are debunked or false claims is an excersize in inviting even more controversy to an already controversial page. You can pull up the book on the Book of Abraham by Larson and throw out half of the arguments because he quotes folks who we now know shouldn't have commented as it was not their area of expertise, however, it is still popular and still used, and therfore has some validity. Val42, do you have other suggestions on breaking up the arguments? How about Secular arguments [2], Phycho-biographical arguments, cultural arguments, doctrinal arguments (which are very view in reality), historical arguments, etc.? Again, lets not judge the arguments, but place them all in their full context and let the reader seek out additional information. On further reading, I was confusing Val's Comments with The Digital Gabeg's. Val, I think we are close on our thinking. Let's figure out a good way to outline them all. Thoughts? - Visorstuff 16:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I may have missed a point you were making? I've said nothing about intent anywhere have I? Rather I've taken the definitions of Anti-Mormonism from combining similar Anti-Semetic, Racist, Anti-Catholic pages. I agree that in each term when you are dealing with a people who in large measure feel they are being discriminated against, that they label more people as discriminatory than actually are in reality. I don't think that most of Signature Books stuff is "Anti" nor do many others. But rather they consider it misguided. I do think that the link above does describe a relatively new phenomenon of secular criticism - and the public nature of how its done makes it anti, etc. CAn you clarify what I feel I've missed here? - Visorstuff 18:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, however, I was using the article as a point for a relatively new movement - secular anti-Mormonism. This is typically not the signature book folks, but others outside - I would lump tom murphy and the guy down in under in this group, as well as other non-religous folk. I disagree with lumping signature books in with anti-mormonism. Nor would I include that in this article, as it is not appropriate. But thanks for clarifying this with me. - Visorstuff 20:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC) (actually, Tom Murphy fits into this group, not because of his DNA findings, but because of his vocal nature of how "uninspired" the LDS leadership is and calls for it to change. He was fighting against church leaders about his research, which is different that believing in his ressearch - make any sense? The other guy is an obvious "hater" of the Church and makes no apologies for fighting against the church - Visorstuff 20:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC))
Well, if "anti-Mormonism" can be worn as a badge of honor, we haven't yet found anyone who does. Lacking anyone who holds such an ideological position stepping forward, we will have to do the best we can. Val42 04:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
What does anti-Mormon mean. I am collecting a few references:
Nereocystis 16:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
There are a few areas which need work before publishing the article.
References are needed. Who defined the term?
References to secular anti-Mormonism, which is used to describe activities contraries objected to by the Mormon church, such as calling Signature Book anti-Mormon.
Anti-Mormonism is first described as active hostility or prejudice, but then it is described as:
What is opposition to Mormon history? This may include Signature Books, if they include a book which is not approved by the LDS Church. Opposition to Mormon leadership may include disagreement on same-sex marriage or gays in Scouts. This is not prejudice against Mormonism; it is a careful decision to oppose some of Mormonism's actions.
On the one hand, anti-Mormon seems to be prejudice, on the other it includes any opposition. By first mentioning prejudice, all disagreement is implicitly including under prejudice. This makes the article seem POV to me.
Unfortunately, I don't have a simple suggestion on how to change the article. Nereocystis 18:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Is it time to bring this article online? Of course, it's not perfect, but what article is. I think it's an article that has to stay, simply because the word anti-Mormonism is widely used, and there needs to be an explanation of what it is, and how the word is used. I also don't think this affects our pending discussion on the ( Criticism of Mormonism page). Regardless of whether or not we have a criticism page (which, of course, I oppose), there will also have to be an anti-Mormonism page, because criticism and anti-Mormonism are not the same thing. I don't even think that anti-Mormonism is a subset of Mormon criticism, because there is anti-Mormonism which is not criticism, just opposition. If we drew a Venn diagram, we'd have two partially-overlapping circles. COGDEN 19:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above section title and the below text was added to the "Anti-Mormon" page:
This may be a more appropriate term, but it is not the term used in "the wild". "Anti-Mormonism" is the term used, so that is the name of this article. Val42 05:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I have added a tag to Postrational Anti-Mormonism, proposing that it be merged into this article. If the text is usable, it should be incorporated into this, possibly as a separate section. Please agree/disagree here.. - N (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I deleted the following text:
This sounds like someone's personal views. Does anyone have any references to support this viewpoint? btw, I tried to make a comment in the article using "<>"; what is the correct way? Thanks. 18:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This is, by and large, the most disgusting wikipedia article I have ever read. -- Davidknippers 07:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
As always, constructive criticism would be welcome. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
If you go back into the article's history you'll see why it is that way. At one time, it was a very POV article, and the result that you see is an outline of items that need to be filled out and addressed to be more up-to-date. It is very FAR from perfect, but this was an outline created based on the most current up-to-date research on the topic available. Yes, it needs clean up. Are you willing to help? - Visorstuff 19:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, it was created as a sandbox, but editors called for it to go live because of the POV issues and edit warring with the previous version. You'll find all of this in the history of the article. - Visorstuff 22:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Proposed, to prevent cross-talk, that all comments on this be consolidated in one location, at Talk:Criticism_of_Mormonism#Proposed_merger_with_Anti-Mormonism
Did what I could on an emergency room basis, and I will be back to reread to because there are about five or six places that absolutely require citations. There needs to be a section on anti-Mormon pathology, since it is drummed into the membership as a persecution complex. Will be back to oblige sooner or later. Anon166 17:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
So, some Mormon invents a word not in the dictionary and uses it to describe a phenomenon spelled with a hyphen? I don't think this research is understood by anyone but Mormons, since it "coins" a new word for their opposition, because the wikipedia article on post-rational is at odds with using it this way. Since Mormon apologists object to any balance for this described phenomena as counter-assertive to Mormon proselyting against them (in other words, Mormons are guilty of the same thing), we need to remove this section, because it gives the stamp of approval on some lone research. If anyone neutral or rational can explain its value here, then so be it, but as it stands it is clearly original self-serving internal Mormonism apologetics and against NPOV policies, and this from one who enjoys a new theory, but one that isn't religious POV. Anon166 01:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Each editor has a POV; it is impossible to evade having a point of view. However, as we strive to write scholarly articles we likewise strive to be objective. Clarification because you have made an assumption and distinction I did not make. My statment was: "I suspect you might admit that you are rabidly against anything to do with Mormonism; you may want to recruit an objective, third party to discuss some of your edits." I have not named you anti-Mormon, I have stated you are rabidly against anything to do with Mormonism, which is evident by your edits, their tone, and the generalizations you make about Mormons. Are you rabidly against anything having to do with Mormons? To you see yourself as objective in this area? If my personal opinion mattered (it doesn't), I would say you are either a harsh critique, but it would not surprise me to find out you think of yourself as anti-Mormon. Knowing our own personal POV helps us to seek other opinions and acknowledge that sometimes we definitely need others to review our work. The best editors on WIKI seek the assistance of others to review their work, especially where their personal POV might come into play.
Your edits speak for themselves just as mine do. To attempt to deny our own POVs is silly and makes those who try to be all the more a fool and disregarded on WIKI. Storm Rider (talk)
I hate to break up your character assasination fun here, but none of this is helping the article. Anon166, your claim to be NPOV is laughable, and the more you protest, the sillier you sound. I have seen StormRider make many reasonable edits in the past, softening POV posts in both directions, but your edits don't fall into that category. And all these "citations needed" tags are cluttering up the article. I don't always agree with StormRider, but I have always respected his opinion.
And, BTW, I have no opinion on ex-mormons, which (IMHO) would be as silly as to have an opinion on mormons. Each person is different and has their own reasons for their own beliefs. What bothers me are the ones who, as are described in the article, can't seem to let others believe what they believe without attacking them. I have seen many new converts (and ex-mormon is a type of convert) strongly try to justify their new religion and/or justify their separation from their old religion. How long they keep it up depends on a number of factors, but hopefully they will eventually get over the transition and calm down. I wish you well. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 12:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Anon166, let's start with this edit that you have brought up. This sentence first read:
You added a clarification to the end of the sentence:
Your addition brings in a new tone to the statement. The previous sentence was clear; Exmormons and critics of Mormonism are not appropriately labeled anti-Mormon. Meaning they have to do something else to be appropriately labeled anti-Mormon. Your addition does nothing but change tone. Does Mormonism encourage labeling Exmormons or critics anti-Mormon? My request for a reference is because your statement infers that because they do not discourage it, they must encourage it either blatantly or provide tacit approval of it; neither of which is true.
My preference would be to delete your addition so that sentence reads as it did originally. If not, then provide a reputable reference that Mormons don't discourage it or that they encourage this stated action. Storm Rider (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
On another issue, I can not find a resume on Glen Chapman. He appears to have written several things, but at this time I can not verify creditials. Has anyone else found something. The creation of terms is rather common; without it we would be in a sorry state trying to explain technological advancements in society for the last 20 years. Just because it is a new term does not seem like a particularly worthy reason to delete it. You might want to explain how NPOV standards apply; I would focus more on reputable references. Also, you may want to ask for assistance from admins or sysops given that they are the most skilled in these areas. Storm Rider (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think this section illustrates my objection to the title of this article rather well: either the article will end up with severe NPOV issues in having to decide who's an Anti-Mormon, and who's not, or will have to go so far out of it's way to address the issue, that the specific title would be too narrow. I suggest once again that the rewrite should give serious consideration to re-scoping and re-titling the article. Alai 06:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
There's no reason to make them separate articles. I certainly haven't said "make no reference to or treatment of" Anti-Mormonism, the article should clearly do so. But are you really planning to confine yourself to Anti-Mormons that self-describe? That's certainly not been the gist of the discussion on the topic to date, or what the current draft rewrite says. I proposed a page move about six weeks ago, see the talk page of the parent article, as well as the comments above, so while I didn't perform the move myself, I certainly don't feel it was exactly done "over-hastily". Alai 16:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Anti-Mormon page needs serious help. As most of ya'll have noted, neutrallity on this topic is difficult for active Mormons. Well, as a Scholarly Christian that is Anti-Mormon for logical, historic, & theological reasons, I will try to help ya'll clean up your anti-mormon page. But, you will have to give me some lee way. I am new to Wikipedia, and I may make some blunders along the way. I believe Visorstuff fixed my fix on the First Patriarch already. Thanks - My fix, fixed the error and added a new one. Wayne
Rather I am the more scholarly Christian type. In my theology, I do not have the time to go after a fight. Altho' I would not consider preaching the Truth to be in the same realm as physical violence. Critic in the sence of scholarly disagreement, yes. Critic in the sence of theological difference, yes. But, I am not an 'activist'.
However, I am presenting a paper on Mormon Soteriology, over 20 reference works (I think 10 of those were differing forms of a Joseph Smith). Whew! Talk about difficult. Trying to figure out who is who in Mormon history/theology takes a specialized degree!
OK - SR, what gives? what was merely POV? Not that I could document it, but I have. Mormon history seemed to have elicited pain in you rather quickly. As for my objectivity? I have not assumed that you do not know anything about Mormons. But, if you don't know nothin' about them, I can get you some tracks by Chick . . .
And yes, that was a cheap shot. Considering that I have struggled through 2 different Joseph Fielding Smiths in the last week, and I have never read a Chick track . . . and it is late, I was being gracious. ;) So, why was it not NPOV? Especially when compared to the article itself? Regards, Wayne El guero
"Please let's not think we are the sole possessors of the truth." Do you really want me to answer that?
This forum asked for help, I provided that assistance. You were offended, could this reflect some of what the Mormon definition of 'anti-Moromonism' is referring to?
If the term is a Mormon only term, then the lead sentance should say so. Otherwise, the article is NPOV.
Instead the article starts out by defining anti-Mormonism as a LEGAL opposition to Mormonism. That places law abiding Christians in the same league as someone defacing Mormon temples. That is a POV. Unless, we are legally supposed to deface temples. Did I miss that ammendment? El guero
SR,
"I was offended by your reference to only Mormons having a problem with neutrality."
SHOW ME where I said that. I think you said that.
SR,
I did not say "only Mormons having a problem with neutrality." But, now that YOU have said it for me, would you like me to agree with you?
I would prefer to disagree with you and stay by my words rather than to assume the connotation that your words would carry.
The more active one is in their Religion the more difficult it is to be neutral on matters of faith. 68.116.136.72
SR
If 'Bozo' is your best shot, you need to get a life. Ad hominem attacks are beneath real scholars. It is evident that you do not wish this article to abide by the stated NPOV policy. That is a sad reflection upon you and those that attempt real scholarship here on wiki.
SR,
I really do not know why you are so touchy. "Before I go further, please understand that I am a bit more touchy than many of my associates and friends (on both sides)." But, you have attempted no dialogue and have only used diatribe. I would expect that is why you end up feeling hurt by others as they attempt to deal with sensitive issues.
Friend, I wish you luck. But, you should notice that my usage of 'you' and 'your' was significantly less than your usage of the terms, because I was trying not to add fuel to your fire.
You have been hurt by people. But, that was not my fault. Nor, have I said anything that deserved the diatribe that you threw at me.
(unsigned by User:66.169.151.165)
EL G -- you wrote: "Instead the article starts out by defining anti-Mormonism as a LEGAL opposition to Mormonism" Umm. I'm missing the point here. How much anti-Semitism, or anti-black or anti-catholic opposition is illegal. Not much. Not today. Perhaps activism was more illegal historically, but again, I'm missing your point. Criticism and active activism against are two seperate topics. I disagree with Catholic teachings, but I do not go out and burn Rosaries, or preach over the pulpit as to why they are all going to hell, pugatory or whatever. If the anon who is still responding and EL G the same person, then this discussion is not only fruitless, but you seem to purposefully be trying to keep the conversation alive. Let's move on. - Visorstuff 00:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I second Visorstuff's suggestion to move on. Any discussion here should be about the content of the article, not about each other. As far as the definition of "anti-Mormonism" for purposes of this article, please read the proposal to merge this article with others elsewhere on this Talk page. It's all been hashed out before.
Forgive me for straying from the subject of this article for a moment, but this looks like another golden opportunity to encourage anyone who wants to contribute significantly to use a registered username, which not required, is part of Wikipedia:Etiquette. And just as a favor to me, I'd rather see StormRider called by his full username instead of SR, as those initials first made me think of another user who, as far as I know, has never contributed to any of the Mormonism-related articles. Thanks everyone. Wesley 04:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm still very unclear as to the exact definition of the term "Anti-Mormon". As a result, much of the rest of the article is a bit fuzzy to me. Much of it applies to groups that could ostensibly by called "exmormon". So, I thought I'd start another heading in this Talk page to specifically address this crucial topic. Yesterday I posted a much longer post here, but after I thought about it, I've cut it down.
The way the article is written right now, it seems that the difference between an "Anti-Mormon" and a "Critic" boils down to this: Anti-Mormons make their views public, while Critics generally keep their mouths shut.
I'm not convinced this is a good criteria. Can we discuss other possible definitions?
Personally, I still think there Exmormons, Critics, and Anti-Mormons are all in the same pot, with the term "Anti-Mormon" used to pejoratively label obnoxious critics. KevinM 20:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The bottom line is that the term exists. We should use cultural norms - so the article needs to be "anti-mormon." it will eventually be written, may as well define it similar to anti-semetism, anti-catholic, etc.
Second, perhaps i need to rework the term/definition. Its not that anti-mormon activists (I'd rather use the term activists and anti-mormon publications than anti-mormons or anti-mormon literature - as that is how it shows up in scholarly work) are public (although that is a part)- it is that they hate and then do something about it. much like those who are against those of other faiths or races. If I personally don't like jews, that is one thing, but if I'm anti-semetic, that's another. it states that i'm engaged in activity of some sort. does that make sense? - Visorstuff 17:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Rsduhamel posted the following on Talk:Opposition to Mormonism:
I redirected him to this rewrite page and I'd hoped that he'd express this view on this page. I hope that he won't mind me copying his comment to this page; It is very good and very relevant.
Let me summarize what I get out of his comments: anti-Mormons are those who protest and picket in ways that are, sometimes to often, loud, abusive and (to the people they are addressing) sacriligeous; and sometimes sacriligeous actions. I'd like to add that this has historically been much more abusive, up to beating, tar-and-feathering, and killing of the objects of their hate. I think that using these two sentences (or significantly similary) would work as the basis of a definition of "anti-Mormons". But do we spell it with or without a hyphen?
Those who disagree doctrinally, whether being truthful or not, should be put in a different category/article. Val42 19:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I made some edits to the article, but they were minor. I'd like to address the issue of structural organization of this article. It doesn't have a clear structural organization. I think that it should be organized either historically or by the sub-classes of anti-mormon (that is still being debated). If organized historically (which I prefer), it should be about what occurred at each location that prompted the moves, including the Extermination Order in Missouri. It should include how splinter sects that remained in the Mississippi region were treated as well as what happenned to the main body that later settled in Utah. It should then cover Johnson's Army, the Mountain Meadow Massacre (while inexcusable was a reaction to anti-mormonism), polygamy and other things. This can lead in to modern anti-mormonism, which borrows from (dubious) earlier sources, the semi-annual protests at Temple Square (and surrounding areas) and the very vocal persons who used bullhorns on the Main Street Plaza. Val42 02:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
In reading the original article, I noticed that the sections on Doctrinal Opposition, and on Actual and Alleged Doctrinal Differences, were rather disorganized and one-sided. These sections are mirrored in this rewrite by the "Anti-Mormon Tactics and Trends" section, which is undeveloped at present. I am unqualified to make any statements about this topic, but I would like to suggest a structure and system for addressing the topic.
The attacks upon Mormonism which this segment intends to address are of two kinds - logical and organizational. The logical attacks attempt to disprove the claims of Mormonism; the organizational attacks seek to make the practice of Mormonism inconvenient. These are related, but fundamentally different; I suggest that the topic be divided into two topics along these lines.
The section which addresses logical attacks upon Mormonism should break these attacks down along logical lines. I think that the section on opposition logic should be divided into at least three sub-sections:
I agree they should be split up, but not how The Digital Gabeg suggests. For example, I think that drawing a link between the Spaulding manuscript or Ethan Smith's View to the Hebrews have been sufficiently debunked, however, they are still popular arguments. So showing which ones are debunked or false claims is an excersize in inviting even more controversy to an already controversial page. You can pull up the book on the Book of Abraham by Larson and throw out half of the arguments because he quotes folks who we now know shouldn't have commented as it was not their area of expertise, however, it is still popular and still used, and therfore has some validity. Val42, do you have other suggestions on breaking up the arguments? How about Secular arguments [2], Phycho-biographical arguments, cultural arguments, doctrinal arguments (which are very view in reality), historical arguments, etc.? Again, lets not judge the arguments, but place them all in their full context and let the reader seek out additional information. On further reading, I was confusing Val's Comments with The Digital Gabeg's. Val, I think we are close on our thinking. Let's figure out a good way to outline them all. Thoughts? - Visorstuff 16:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I may have missed a point you were making? I've said nothing about intent anywhere have I? Rather I've taken the definitions of Anti-Mormonism from combining similar Anti-Semetic, Racist, Anti-Catholic pages. I agree that in each term when you are dealing with a people who in large measure feel they are being discriminated against, that they label more people as discriminatory than actually are in reality. I don't think that most of Signature Books stuff is "Anti" nor do many others. But rather they consider it misguided. I do think that the link above does describe a relatively new phenomenon of secular criticism - and the public nature of how its done makes it anti, etc. CAn you clarify what I feel I've missed here? - Visorstuff 18:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, however, I was using the article as a point for a relatively new movement - secular anti-Mormonism. This is typically not the signature book folks, but others outside - I would lump tom murphy and the guy down in under in this group, as well as other non-religous folk. I disagree with lumping signature books in with anti-mormonism. Nor would I include that in this article, as it is not appropriate. But thanks for clarifying this with me. - Visorstuff 20:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC) (actually, Tom Murphy fits into this group, not because of his DNA findings, but because of his vocal nature of how "uninspired" the LDS leadership is and calls for it to change. He was fighting against church leaders about his research, which is different that believing in his ressearch - make any sense? The other guy is an obvious "hater" of the Church and makes no apologies for fighting against the church - Visorstuff 20:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC))
Well, if "anti-Mormonism" can be worn as a badge of honor, we haven't yet found anyone who does. Lacking anyone who holds such an ideological position stepping forward, we will have to do the best we can. Val42 04:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
What does anti-Mormon mean. I am collecting a few references:
Nereocystis 16:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
There are a few areas which need work before publishing the article.
References are needed. Who defined the term?
References to secular anti-Mormonism, which is used to describe activities contraries objected to by the Mormon church, such as calling Signature Book anti-Mormon.
Anti-Mormonism is first described as active hostility or prejudice, but then it is described as:
What is opposition to Mormon history? This may include Signature Books, if they include a book which is not approved by the LDS Church. Opposition to Mormon leadership may include disagreement on same-sex marriage or gays in Scouts. This is not prejudice against Mormonism; it is a careful decision to oppose some of Mormonism's actions.
On the one hand, anti-Mormon seems to be prejudice, on the other it includes any opposition. By first mentioning prejudice, all disagreement is implicitly including under prejudice. This makes the article seem POV to me.
Unfortunately, I don't have a simple suggestion on how to change the article. Nereocystis 18:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Is it time to bring this article online? Of course, it's not perfect, but what article is. I think it's an article that has to stay, simply because the word anti-Mormonism is widely used, and there needs to be an explanation of what it is, and how the word is used. I also don't think this affects our pending discussion on the ( Criticism of Mormonism page). Regardless of whether or not we have a criticism page (which, of course, I oppose), there will also have to be an anti-Mormonism page, because criticism and anti-Mormonism are not the same thing. I don't even think that anti-Mormonism is a subset of Mormon criticism, because there is anti-Mormonism which is not criticism, just opposition. If we drew a Venn diagram, we'd have two partially-overlapping circles. COGDEN 19:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above section title and the below text was added to the "Anti-Mormon" page:
This may be a more appropriate term, but it is not the term used in "the wild". "Anti-Mormonism" is the term used, so that is the name of this article. Val42 05:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I have added a tag to Postrational Anti-Mormonism, proposing that it be merged into this article. If the text is usable, it should be incorporated into this, possibly as a separate section. Please agree/disagree here.. - N (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I deleted the following text:
This sounds like someone's personal views. Does anyone have any references to support this viewpoint? btw, I tried to make a comment in the article using "<>"; what is the correct way? Thanks. 18:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This is, by and large, the most disgusting wikipedia article I have ever read. -- Davidknippers 07:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
As always, constructive criticism would be welcome. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
If you go back into the article's history you'll see why it is that way. At one time, it was a very POV article, and the result that you see is an outline of items that need to be filled out and addressed to be more up-to-date. It is very FAR from perfect, but this was an outline created based on the most current up-to-date research on the topic available. Yes, it needs clean up. Are you willing to help? - Visorstuff 19:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, it was created as a sandbox, but editors called for it to go live because of the POV issues and edit warring with the previous version. You'll find all of this in the history of the article. - Visorstuff 22:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Proposed, to prevent cross-talk, that all comments on this be consolidated in one location, at Talk:Criticism_of_Mormonism#Proposed_merger_with_Anti-Mormonism
Did what I could on an emergency room basis, and I will be back to reread to because there are about five or six places that absolutely require citations. There needs to be a section on anti-Mormon pathology, since it is drummed into the membership as a persecution complex. Will be back to oblige sooner or later. Anon166 17:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
So, some Mormon invents a word not in the dictionary and uses it to describe a phenomenon spelled with a hyphen? I don't think this research is understood by anyone but Mormons, since it "coins" a new word for their opposition, because the wikipedia article on post-rational is at odds with using it this way. Since Mormon apologists object to any balance for this described phenomena as counter-assertive to Mormon proselyting against them (in other words, Mormons are guilty of the same thing), we need to remove this section, because it gives the stamp of approval on some lone research. If anyone neutral or rational can explain its value here, then so be it, but as it stands it is clearly original self-serving internal Mormonism apologetics and against NPOV policies, and this from one who enjoys a new theory, but one that isn't religious POV. Anon166 01:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Each editor has a POV; it is impossible to evade having a point of view. However, as we strive to write scholarly articles we likewise strive to be objective. Clarification because you have made an assumption and distinction I did not make. My statment was: "I suspect you might admit that you are rabidly against anything to do with Mormonism; you may want to recruit an objective, third party to discuss some of your edits." I have not named you anti-Mormon, I have stated you are rabidly against anything to do with Mormonism, which is evident by your edits, their tone, and the generalizations you make about Mormons. Are you rabidly against anything having to do with Mormons? To you see yourself as objective in this area? If my personal opinion mattered (it doesn't), I would say you are either a harsh critique, but it would not surprise me to find out you think of yourself as anti-Mormon. Knowing our own personal POV helps us to seek other opinions and acknowledge that sometimes we definitely need others to review our work. The best editors on WIKI seek the assistance of others to review their work, especially where their personal POV might come into play.
Your edits speak for themselves just as mine do. To attempt to deny our own POVs is silly and makes those who try to be all the more a fool and disregarded on WIKI. Storm Rider (talk)
I hate to break up your character assasination fun here, but none of this is helping the article. Anon166, your claim to be NPOV is laughable, and the more you protest, the sillier you sound. I have seen StormRider make many reasonable edits in the past, softening POV posts in both directions, but your edits don't fall into that category. And all these "citations needed" tags are cluttering up the article. I don't always agree with StormRider, but I have always respected his opinion.
And, BTW, I have no opinion on ex-mormons, which (IMHO) would be as silly as to have an opinion on mormons. Each person is different and has their own reasons for their own beliefs. What bothers me are the ones who, as are described in the article, can't seem to let others believe what they believe without attacking them. I have seen many new converts (and ex-mormon is a type of convert) strongly try to justify their new religion and/or justify their separation from their old religion. How long they keep it up depends on a number of factors, but hopefully they will eventually get over the transition and calm down. I wish you well. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 12:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Anon166, let's start with this edit that you have brought up. This sentence first read:
You added a clarification to the end of the sentence:
Your addition brings in a new tone to the statement. The previous sentence was clear; Exmormons and critics of Mormonism are not appropriately labeled anti-Mormon. Meaning they have to do something else to be appropriately labeled anti-Mormon. Your addition does nothing but change tone. Does Mormonism encourage labeling Exmormons or critics anti-Mormon? My request for a reference is because your statement infers that because they do not discourage it, they must encourage it either blatantly or provide tacit approval of it; neither of which is true.
My preference would be to delete your addition so that sentence reads as it did originally. If not, then provide a reputable reference that Mormons don't discourage it or that they encourage this stated action. Storm Rider (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
On another issue, I can not find a resume on Glen Chapman. He appears to have written several things, but at this time I can not verify creditials. Has anyone else found something. The creation of terms is rather common; without it we would be in a sorry state trying to explain technological advancements in society for the last 20 years. Just because it is a new term does not seem like a particularly worthy reason to delete it. You might want to explain how NPOV standards apply; I would focus more on reputable references. Also, you may want to ask for assistance from admins or sysops given that they are the most skilled in these areas. Storm Rider (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)