Talk:Mormonism and authority
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Mess
This article is a complete mess with weasel words, NPOV issues from both sides, and alot of unsubstantiated accusations followed up by unsubstantiated responses. I will check back soon, and I am seriously considering nominating this article for deletion.(147.126.46.165 03:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC))
- I completely and totally agree, we already have way too many LDS-related articles (many of which are poorly written). This article could be summed up in about 5 or 6 lines in another article. gdavies 06:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Title of the article
I'm wondering if the title of this article should be narrowed a bit to something like Authoritarianism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? While some could argue that Joseph Smith's Nauvoo organization was authoritarian, I don't think there's any easy way to make generalizations about the authoritarianism of all post-Smith branches of Mormonism. Some, like the FLDS Church, you might argue are authoritarian to the extreme, while others, like the Community of Christ, are only about as authoritarian as most Protestant churches. COGDEN 22:39, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I had similar thoughts...I've no problem with your suggestion. B 22:11, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
- In addition, I'm wondering about the word authoritarianism. The title "Authoritarianism and Mormonism" doesn't seem to be NPOV, because the presupposes that Mormonism is authoritarian, which is a point of view. It's like having an article called "Closed-mindedness and the Republican Party". A better title would probably be something like "Authority and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "Power and influence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". The article also obviously needs to be rewritten in a more neutral form.COGDEN 18:15, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
POV? Yes, like an article styled "Naïveté, Suckers and Democrats". A title change of this article along the lines you suggest would be more NPOV, but rabid critics probably feel otherwise. —B|Talk 03:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There should be something here about the "Destroying Angels" (Bill Hickman, et al) of the BYoung era. I don't have the expertise to add it, though. MisfitToys 00:29, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
- MisfitToys, the Danite article has already been started...as have alot of Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do a search and don't duplicate articles. Maybe a redirect is needed, but I suggest you stick to articles on which you have expertise...for example, one of your latest edits, about LDS view contrasting sharply with the Priesthood of all believers on the Mormonism and Christianity article is flatly wrong.
-
- Sorry if it was misconstrued; I've removed the word 'sharply', and made some other small revisions in the Mormonism and Christianity article. (It seemed your phrasing regarding ecumenism was unsure; feel free to edit or revert.) As for the Danite article, I'll confess I missed it (but not much links to it at the moment, primarily a couple of directory pages); I didn't find it through the searches I did before posting here earlier. It seems a link (rather than a redirect) would be appropriate; I don't think the articles duplicate one another, but the topics are related. Anyway, this is what the talk pages are for. No offense intended. MisfitToys 23:40, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
Would this article be the place to say something about the perceived secretiveness of the LDS? According to hearsay evidence only, I've heard of several ex-Mormons saying certain teachings would only be taught or explained after one gained the right to enter a Mormon Temple, or a certain part of a Mormon Temple, and then they could not be revealed except to others who met the same qualifications. Any truth to these reports? Are they covered in this article or elsewhere? Wesley 17:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- In general, there's no hard-fast rule that says you can't learn certain doctrines until you meet certain criteria. The church teaches its life-long members the same thing it teaches its new members, except that the very newest converts usually attend a special introductory Sunday School class during one of the three hours of church services every Sunday. The only possible exception is regarding the Endowment ceremony performed in temples. However, there aren't any actual doctrines taught in the ceremony that aren't taught elsewhere. The rituals and symbolisms are new and generally not talked about with outsiders, but there's no secret doctrine. And I think that the secrecy of the ceremony is well covered in the Endowment (Mormonism) page. It's not really an issue having to do with perceived authoritarianism.COGDEN 18:00, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
After having read this article I am of the opinion that the second half is too unbalanced. It presents a viewpoint linking it to various scriptures. The objective of this article was hardly a dogmatic one, but rather to ascertain whether the LDS church can by standard definitions be viewed as authoritarian, how and why. The rebuttle or counterobservations should be in the same language as the first half. You may wish further the observations beyond protestantism to include other religions such as Judaism, of which Orthodoxy and the authority of rabbis in practise are very similar in nature to that exercised in a centralised manner by the LDS church. However, in the Jewish Orthodoxy case, the authority is often part and parcel of the individual rabbi amplified through his council and Bet Din (religious court).--GKAN--
- I agree this article is in bad shape, but I don't think the focus of the article should be whether or not the LDS church is authoritarian. That is way too subjective, and that kind of material belongs on opinionated web sites, rather than the Wikipedia. All this article can really hope to do is to describe—factually—how the church uses its ecclesiastical, social, economic, and political power to influence the lives of its members. Any conclusions about whether such actions by the church are "authoritarian" should be left to the reader. COGDEN 01:08, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I read up a little on the Mountain Meadow Massacre and can't seem to find anything that supports the idea that the Mormons who massacred the Pioneers thought they might be killing to DEFEND their land, family or religion. It almost sounds like you are claiming that the specific mormons who were involved in the massacre made a George Bush pre-emptive attack made on the grounds of bad intelligence. It's well documented that Germans believed Hitlers lies, but is the claim legitamtely documented that these particular mormons really felt their land, families, and religion were in danger to this party of roughly 120, or that they were "redeeming Zion" for past wrongs by killing them?
EXCERPT: "Latter Day Saint history in the 1800s has shown that Church members were willing to use violence as a means to defend (whether in response to legitimate evidence or as a result of incorrect perceptions) land, family or religion, as is the case with the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the Battle of Crooked River."
Using the word "defend" sounds like sugar coating for what really happened. I'm not an authority, but feel unless there is someone who is an authority who can verify that the Mormons in that region felt they massacred in defense, then so be it. Obviously they aren't excused, but it would be at least accuratley explained. If it was in self defense then the pioneer party probably would not have seen the Mormons as protection from the indians. It sounds like the pioneer party was never offensive therefore it would be extremely difficult to have "incorrect perceptions" that the pioneer party was there to threaten their land, family or religion. If it was in defense then it probably wouldn't be called a "massacre". I'm Sorry this ever happened; apologies need to be strong. I'm also sorry for being wordy. - jmecham
- I understood it as an educated guess. After all, they had just fled from persecution.Damerflinn
[edit] Style issues
This is basically an essay. I think this should be merged with criticism of mormonism or deleted (as Criticism of mormonism is basically a pov fork from Anti-Mormonism). gdavies 17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
