Talk:Anti-Mormonism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Anti-Mormonism was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: August 12, 2006

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Reply by Alanyst

Well, I guess my views are like this: the term anti-Mormon can be used pejoratively, but I think it's more often (in my experience) used as a simple descriptor for groups or people whose primary focus is to oppose and criticize Mormonism and its practitioners. It's more like the terms "anti-war" or "anti-abortion" when used in that way, and less like "anti-Semitic". The latter inherently connotes a moral judgment of the person with those views than the former terms do. So, I take issue with your tendency to label the term as an unqualified pejorative. It's unfair to the people who do use it in a neutral way, imputing a level of vitriol to their words that they may never have felt.

That said, I'm sure the term has been used as a pejorative, too. How widespread that is, I don't know -- I've never encountered it in such usage in my own experience, but I can easily imagine it happening. Yet that doesn't mean that the term is generally taken to connote a negative moral judgment. Personally, I prefer to use terms such as "critic" or "opponent" when describing people or groups. It's not quite as easy to find a term for literature and propaganda against Mormonism; if the subject is Mormonism and the purpose of the material is to oppose or criticize it, then "anti-Mormon" is a rather accurate and convenient adjective.

But you talk of "getting LDS editors to stop using the term in this project". That assumes (a) that use of the term is indeed inappropriate for Wikipedia -- which has not been demonstrated -- and (b) that LDS editors are the only ones using the term, and (c) that one can even expect to prevent all other editors from using certain terms and labels that one doesn't like. If you hope to get people to stop using the term "anti-Mormon", then I think your best approach would be the same as if you wanted people to avoid the term "anti-Semite" or "anti-Semitic": politely raise the issue, explain your position, listen to contrary viewpoints, seek to respectfully persuade others to your way of thinking, attempt to gain consensus, and then if successful, alter the wording according to the consensus. It's a slow process and you have to be willing not to try to circumvent it by pushing a mandate upon everyone to force them to stop using the term.

Let me briefly address your four questions.

  1. Who besides Mormons and the LDS Church uses this term to describe published books, websites, groups, and people?
    I'm sure there are quite a few. A quick Google search shows that the Salt Lake Tribune, at least, has no qualms about using the term. Some headlines:
    • In-your-face anti-Mormon gospel riles Illinois town central to LDS history [note: this is actually a Chicago Tribune story, from what I can tell, picked up from the wire by the SLT]
    • Anti-Mormon group gives away DVDs in pre-LDS Conference campaign
    • Federal judge dismisses anti-Mormon group suit
  2. Who are the groups and individuals who are the targets of this term?
    People or groups who actively and specifically oppose the church, its teachings, and/or its people, from what I can tell. In contrast, I don't see it used anywhere as a blanket description all people who leave the church, or who aren't a member of the church, or who believe differently than what the church teaches, or whose criticisms or evangelical efforts are not targeted specifically at Mormons.
  3. What does the Church official teach as doctrine related to groups and the use of this term?
    I'm not a spokesman for the church, so I'd have to go with what early and modern teachings and sermons of church leaders, acting in their official capacity, would say, in order to answer that. No time to research the question further, I'm afraid.
  4. What historical instances and situations have used this term and directed towards who?
    See answers to 1 and 2, though the answers are necessarily barely scraping the surface. My answers also don't address how it has been used by LDS people or groups (officially or unofficially), but I'm sure the uses run the gamut and examples can be found of the term being applied in any number of ways to any number of people or circumstances. Without a lengthy study of its use, it would be hard to assess how often it's aimed at particular types of people or in what proportion certain connotations are implied.

Sorry for the length of this reply; hope I haven't bored everyone to tears. alanyst /talk/ 13:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that anyone who calls the Mormon church a "cult" is anti-Mormon. And I would go so far as to say it is just as vile as anything anti-Semetic or similar. Bytebear 19:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I do find the term cult offensive, but I don't necessarily think of a person who uses the term descriptively as an anti-Mormon. To me an anti-Mormon demonstrates an intense hate for the LDS religion. They no longer think, study, or hear any information that contradicts their position. It is no longer a philosophical conversation, but it is emotional position that paints in complete black. For example, I have many catholic and other Christian friends that have used the term cult, but I do not view them as anti-Mormon. I know others who use cult and have a barrage of pieces of information and yet have no understanding of Mormonism, but they know that they hate it, that it is a stain on religion, and it should be stamped out.
I acknowledge others as anti-Mormon by the quality of the things they say. It is readily apparent when an editor has read an anti-Mormon website and is parroting what they have read. There is no understanding, there is no thinking or logic present in their position, it is simply Mormonism is a cult because they say so.
Cult is purposely used by some people to be offensive. Anti-Mormon is not used to be offensive, but to call a spade a spade. Most anti-Mormons are proud of being anti-Mormon and they where the term as acknowledgement of their advanced knowledge. What I find surprising is when someone wants to act like an anti-Mormon and does not want to acknowledge their position. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
So, someone has to have some understanding of Mormonism to be considered anti-Mormon? Calling Mormonism a cult is done by three groups. 1) the ignorant, 2) those who know better and 3) those who choose to distort the facts. All three do it from an anti-Mormon position. Bytebear 21:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow. No other alternatives than your suggestions of #1, #2, or #3?! How about "those who believe Mormons are wrong." At least it isn't pejorative. 67.185.162.109 (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think many, if not most, who use it do so out of ignorance. That hear their minister state that we are a cult and viola, LDS are cult members. I tend to begin asking questions at that point; what do you mean by cult?; did you know that Christianity after the time of Christ was called a cult?, etc. Wehn you dig down into undersatnding their definitions you readily find out the individual has virtually no knowledge and are only parroting their minister. These people I don't think of as anti-Mormon unless they pick up the stick and dedicate themselves to tearing down the religion. To me anti-Mormonism is active; it is not just a mindset. We can all have ideas about certain things. For example, I have a preconceived notion of an Evangelical. When it comes out of someone's mouth, I pretty much think I know where they are coming from and their assumed lack of any real understanding of scripture. It is a weakness of mine, but it is acknowledged and I attempt to keep in in check. Anti-Mormons seem to alomst give up their beliefs and are committed to tearing down, attacking, and destroying the LDS faith. There is no logic or reason to their position; it is something they believe blindly and it is based in strong emotion.
I suppose that behavior derived from different motivation may still be considered bad; however, I generally like to think that motivation has some bearing on the qualifying behavior and truly bad or simply misguided. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Bold textuser Ensign01 Why did the Mormons wait until 1978 to allow Black members to hold the priesthood? I do not know, but I am not going to ask God why Peter waited to preach to anyone who was not a Jew. He started teaching Jews and was not to preach to the Gentiles. I think we all want to know or think we should be given the information. Too many of us think we are worthy to be given information by God. If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans. Let's not go thinking that God should answer to us. Nothing about the exclusion of Black members from holding the priesthood is racially motivated. After the death of Christ, Peter was instructed to preach to the Jews. The Gentiles were not taught the doctrines of Christ until later, just like the inclusion of Black men to the priesthood, LATER. Oh, by the way, many of the lessons taught in Sunday school do have references to the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon also references the Bible in the foot notes at the bottom of the page and in some cases, the chapter heading. Did Peter seek to convert other religions on His mission? Did Paul seek to convert those who worshipped the Goddess Diana. Read the writings of Paul. He sought to convert Hebrews, Romans, Thessolonians, Corinthians, (more than once) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.7.241.96 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 September 2007

[edit] POV Issue

I have no problem working by consensus, but for starters this line under Sherlock Holmes, IMHO, needs to be removed or sourced: "Still, given the enormous success of the Sherlock Holmes series, the anti-Mormon prejudices gained a distribution which they could never have gotten otherwise." Any objections before I " be bold"?Die4Dixie 03:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just add the "Citation needed" {{fact}} tag and see if you or someone can find one. Bytebear 05:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


As soon as I figure out how to do it. "Gotten", even if sourced, sounds decidedly ignorant and unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia!Die4Dixie 20:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Manti-1999.jpg=POV violation

I see we've had some controversy over Image:Manti-1999.jpg, an image intended to be in an article on a "pro-Mormon" article, but then was placed in here and removed from it's intended article with the people in it labeled as protesters. I think this is a WP:NPOV violation because the usage of this image portrays the people in it in an incorrect fashion, the rationale for representing them like this can be considered personal opinion, and thus no matter what he says, the image should not be used in this article because it introduces a biased view on the subject. ViperSnake151 15:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That is what the person who submitted the picture claims, but I question whether that is correct. To begin with, the picture is back with the original article. Although the article is pro-Mormon, you will notice that the caption on the picture is about Evangelical Christians witnessing before the performance. So, while the article was pro-Mormon, the intent of the people in the picture wasn't. As to whether they were Anti-Mormon would require more information (IMHO), although there are some (but not me) who think that anything that isn't pro-Mormon is Anti-Mormon. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 09:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the picture, using the caption from the Mormon Miracle article, which does not use the term "Anti-Mormon". The section mentions protesters who do not consider themselves Anti-Mormon, so the picture and caption seem to fit. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 09:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looking at other similar articles

I edited the intro today after reading the Anti-Catholicism article. It seemed to be a much clearer defintion and explanation of the topic. This is particularly a propos given some of the polls that have been taken of late where US citizens would not even vote for a LDS, which amounts to blatant discrimination.

We should be reviewing other articles that are well written and imitating them; there is not need to reinvent the will when others have already done so much work and been accepted by the commiunity at large. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Governement section

I deleted the following section, moving it here for discussion:

===Government influence===
Alexander Burns, an undergraduate at Harvard College, posits that the overtly anti-Mormon approach of the government of Colonel Patrick Edward Connor, who arrived in Utah in 1862 to protect the overland mail routes during the Civil War, had a positive influence on the development of Utah. As a "powerful counterweight to Brigham Young and his church," Connor "[broke] down the territory’s fierce isolation from modern American society ... discovered precious metals and thus brought the mining industry to Utah ... helped lay railroads through the territory ... [and] connected it more closely with the rest of the United States."[1] The minority Liberal Party, founded partly in response to Brigham Young's opposition to industrial mining in Utah, soon became the main voice of opposition to Mormonism in the territory.
Some have credited past government pressure towards Mormonism as being responsible for the overturning of doctrines that were politically out of sync (e.g., polygamy[2] and priesthood racial discrimination[3]).

This is not anti-Mormonism, but should probably go in the article on Utah statehood. Am I missing something?

Also, I think a government influence section is probably appropriate given the acticities of the Missouri and the Federal Governement in the Mormon War, etc. Thoughts? --Storm Rider (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)