Talk:Criticism of Mormonism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
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.
Archive
Archives

Contents


[edit] Sexual repression and homophobia

Only a few sentences in the homophobia section actually deal with homophobia, which is an irrational fear against homosexuals. The rest talks about the repression of gay sex, which is already dealt with in the sexual repression section. Those are both important, but distinct concepts. Homophobia attacks people, while sexual repression is attacking gay sex. We should either move the section dealing with the sexual repression of homosexuals into the section on sexual repression or rename the section to something besides homophobia. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also this quote is bad: "I cannot comprehend our Father in Heaven endowing certain of his children with the unique characteristics of a gay person, then rejecting them." This quote implies that either the church rejects gay people or teaches that God does. I agree there are many church members who believe that, but you can't imply the whole church believes that if can't find anything from the church indicating some form of rejection or at least some reliable source saying some of the practices of the church imply that. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was reading the related article section and wonder if Affirmation, a Gay & Lesbian organization, and Ed Decker are even credible references for the cirtique. Neither of them are trained in this in this area and neither has any expertise. Does anyone think they are credible? If so, could you please tell me how they meet our policies for being such on this topic? We must be able to find some qualified references. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fresh perspective needed

This article needs some new perspective. I think it has gotten bogged down in the world of Mormon and Evangelical points of view. Thoughts? --TrustTruth (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions - I think there are several sections that definitely take an Evangelical POV, but I don't think the entire article suffers from that. I do think that the article is a little disorganized, and could use better rebuttals from apologists. I personally would like to see serious scholarly research referenced instead of amateur critics and apologists. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought has a wealth of information written by serious researchers both critical and apologetic. I am not as familiar with other scholarly journals related to Mormonism, but I know there are some out there. --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The other issue this article has is that it is many opinions with nothing backing them up. For example, it says that people beleive that Joesph Smith invinted the church to get money,women, and power. That is an opinion with nothing really backing it up due to the fact the Smith was poor all his life, yes there was polygamy but it wasn't instituted untill years after the church was orginized so why wasn't it introduced immediatly after the church was created, and as for the power. What power did he have over these people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.0.48 (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also has anyone noticed that the "Sources" come from anti-mormon scholars. There are a few that are mormon, but based on this article they speak for the entire church which isn't the case. The few facts are hidden under a blanket of anti mormon facts coming from anti mormon scholars. 71.219.0.48 (talk)

Perhaps you should define what the criteria is to be anti-mormon. Also, your recent attempts to blank this article don't say a lot about your objectivity and good faith.--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I tend to find that mormons use the terminology "anti-mormon" as anyone/anything that shows mormonism in a bad light. Its a thought terminating system designed to dissallow ideas contrary to promoting the religion. Admitedly ive known a very small number of people that are predjudiced against mormons/mormonism in which such a term could be used appropriatly. Though overall I find the term to be missleading or missrepresentative to people that could at worst be called critics. Most have genuine research or legitimate views and issues to bring forward. I believe the issue stems from a fear of persecution which bubbles over into those who merely have differing opinions or contradictory information. Sono hito (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you Sono that there is a wide divide between crticism of Mormonism and anti-Mormonnism. Anti-Mormonism is often misapplied to those who are simply critical, but there is definitley things that appropriately called anti-Mormonism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-Semitism. I would use the term critical as one would use in philosophical debate and not anything that is negative.
When I look at Criticism of the Catholic Church, I see nothing in common with this article. This article has evolved into a hodge-podge of ideas that attempts to catch everything that has ever been said negatively about the LDS church. I personally do not like it because I think it is of such low caliber, its dissimilarity with other comparable articles, and the mixing of criticism with anit-Mormonism. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
While i have many personal issues with mormonism, it should be only fair for NPOV to be the course for this article. Theres a ton of POV from both sides. Understandably from a doctrinal POV anything that speaks ill of mormonism is of satan and as a member it was neigh impossible not to voice a bias as such. When i have more time at home ill attempt to contribute a better NPOV. Because when you get right down to it you need to let the facts speak for themselves. Sono hito (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that wiki as a comparison. Now that ive had some time to give some serious consideration/comparison to it, you are quite right. The entire wiki needs an overhaul for NPOV and objectivity as well as that I'm beginning to think it would be appropriate to remove the Pro/con style of the editing since this is a wiki on the "criticisms of general mormonism" not an article on the "arguments/issues of mormonism" in which pros/cons editorial would be appropriate. Though since the wiki revolves around a religion, one must be very carefull to properly maintain objective statements of criticisms. The Criticism of the Catholic Church wiki is pretty clear cut with very little POV. Comparitively this wiki looks like a room full of people going "oh yeah! well so and so...!". Sono hito (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

The article needs to be renamed "Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement". This would help (big time) to clarify things like the FARMS criticisms, because then our discussion about whether FARMS is an official auxiliary of the church would be moot. Most of the pre-Brigham Young content would stay in the article; the rest could be summarized and split into sub-articles (e.g. Criticism of the LDS church, the FARMS article, Hugh Nibley article, etc.). This would accomplish your goal of moving criticisms back to their mother articles, and it would hugely improve the quality of this article. I am now completely behind you in moving criticisms back to their mother articles. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing conflict; I like the proposal of renaming the article.--Storm Rider (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You guys forget so soon - we had this exact conversation a few months ago, and the decision was to make the article "Criticism of Mormonism" - not "Criticism of the Latter day Saint movement" or "Criticism of the LDS Church". This article is already a POV fork - to fragment it even further would only cause confusion for the reader that is looking for this information. Why do we need to split them out, or rename the article? Why not make this the single comprehensive article to get a picture of the criticisms of Mormon denominations, thought, beliefs, practices, and ideology? Even if you guys don't buy that BYU and FARMS are operated by the LDS church, they would still fall under the auspices of this article in their own right as self-identifying Mormon organizations - so as the article stands right now, I don't see why there needs to be any clarification - it is clear to me what the scope of the article is. By the way - I also don't buy the length argument. Remember that per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and as such, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability..." --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't forget that argument. In fact, I was disappointed when the name was changed back to Criticism of Mormonism without much discussion. I stick by wanting the name changed. However, we don't HAVE to create new articles; we can just have article sections for different denominations. No matter what we do, we need to make it clear that most of the pre-Brigham Young criticisms apply to the entire Latter Day Saint movement, not just to the LDS church. --TrustTruth (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just want to re-emphasize here that this article needs to be renamed to "Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement". Anything not movement-wide should either (1) be absorbed into related articles or (2) split into a separate article that is organization specific (since a lot of criticisms are specific to the LDS Church organization and are not movement-wide). --TrustTruth (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I disagree - I like the article as a general criticism of Mormonism, not the LDS movement, or the LDS church in particular. I think it will make the article more stable. I have only been around this article for 6ish months, but from what I have seen, it swings pretty drastically between critical bias and apologetic bias on a periodic basis. I perceive if we start splitting things out, they will only get added back later by anonymous editors. TrustTruth, perhaps you can give a better rationale behind why you want to change the name? I know that you don't like the Parallelomania section and sections criticizing FARMS, but I think those criticisms are particularly relevant to Mormonism in general and give added value to this article for readers that want to see a high level view of relevant criticism. --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at this template:
v • d • e
Criticism of religion
Belief systems
Organizations
Texts

Bible  · Qur'an
People

Jesus  · Moses  · Muhammad
We need movement-wide criticisms included in an article entitled "Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement". That would go in the first tier on this template. Then we need organization-specific criticisms in an article entitled "Criticism of the LDS Church". That would go in the second tier of the template. The first article would contain criticisms up to the Succession crisis, when most of the schisms occurred (the point where the Community of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), etc. share a common lineage). This would include criticisms of the Book of Mormon, of Joseph Smith, and probably of the Book of Abraham. It could also include criticisms of the movement's apologetics (but would have to include the John Whitmer Historical Association in consideration of where FARMS fits in the universe of Mormon apologetics / historical organizations). The second article would contain criticisms specific to the LDS Church, such as polygamy, doctrinal changes, financial disclosure, etc. This would make a better-organized article overall. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm - I am starting to be persuaded TrustTruth, you make a good argument. Let me think about this some more...--Descartes1979 (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just one more piece of persuasion toward renaming: according to the Wikipedia naming convention, articles that could apply to more than one Latter Day Saint denomination, should use the phrase "Latter Day Saint movement" or the phrase "Latter Day Saints". In addition, the term Mormon or its derivatives such as Mormonism are appropriate when referring to doctrines and practices that have a historical connection to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Utah church, or adherents from Brigham Young forward), but no historical connection to other denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement. Therefore, the idea of renaming this article to "Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement" is consistent with this guideline. Then we either create a new article called "Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or else clearly define that denomination's criticisms within subsections of the main article. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to pulling the trigger on the article split? --TrustTruth (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hugh Nibley criticism

This parallelomania criticism belongs in the Hugh Nibley article, plain and simple. The fact that it's Dialogue making the criticism just strengthens my argument, because Dialogue itself is one of the foremost examples of Mormon scholarship! Dialogue's comments against Parallelomania serve to show that Mormon scholarship in general is not suffering from Parallelomania, and that it is (if true) at best a subset of Mormon scholarship suffering from said mania! If it's a FARMS criticism, it belongs in the FARMS article. Anything else is bald-faced guilt by association. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure its that clear - the quote seems to point at a trend in Mormon scholarship in general (even though it goes on to point at Nibley as the leader of the movement), even if it is from Dialogue itself.--Descartes1979 (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It's bickering among Mormon scholars, not a criticism of the movement (or dare I say the church) as a whole. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Notable apologists include Hugh Nibley, B.H. Roberts, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), and the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR)." This information is not really relevant to the article. This article is not about the defense of the LDS religion, or who is defending it. Greenw47 (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet, contrast yields context. Highlighting an opposite helps one better understand the topic at hand. The reference also renders the article more credible in its neutrality. kylealanhale (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Even you have to admit, this is a wiki on the "criticisms of mormonism" not "arguments/issues of mormonism". Sono hito (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Priesthood and racism section merger

In line with the desire to clean this artile up, I merged both of these sections; they both are about blacks and the priesthood with the same accusations in both sections. If anyone thinks there is somethign wrong with this, please discuss it here.--Storm Rider (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You also conveniently left out some cited sections; maybe you should have started this discussion before doing that. Don't accuse me of edit warring when I simply reverted your changes because they hadn't been discussed. Duke53 | Talk 01:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
No references were left out. The merger was self-explanatory. Both sections used the same references essentially. More importantly, do you have any reason to oppose the merger? --Storm Rider (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I did a quick glance through, and will detail review it later - but one thing sticks out - why is the Walker Lewis debacle and Brigham Young's obvious racism with regards to him not mentioned? That is the real source of the entire sordid history behind blacks and mormonism, and why Young revoked the priesthood from them... --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Walker Lewis may warrant a brief mention in a high-level summary. However, every section in this article needs to be condensed into high-level summaries. The bulk of the criticisms in this article need to be moved to their respective, related articles. I think that's the best way to give proper context to criticisms and rebuttals. BTW, Lewis is fleshed out in the Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article. This article is, essentially, a POV fork. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for Walker Lewis to be mentioned in this article. This is not a dump-all, but rather an article that covers criticism of Mormonism. I am sure Brigham Young offended a number of individuals, should each an everyone of them be mentioned because it is criticism? How about the time when Heber J. Grant as a child spit on the street and the old widow across the street was offended for his crudeness, should that be mentioned. If anything the current section is bloated and repetitive and should be further pared down. The allegation is that Mormons did not ordain black men to the priesthood for racist reasons. I suppose we could have innumerable sections to list every squabble that happened between a Mormon and a non-Mormon, but that seems like overkill. How about if we just say Mormons are human and made mistakes? --Storm Rider (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal

I just removed a quote of a detailed quote arguing against the genetic problem. Please remember that we cannot allow this article to become an online argument - a brief statement of the criticisms and how the subjects view them is all that is required. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that. This article needs to continue moving in the direction of being a summary of each item with a link to the related main article, instead of being a repository of all the for / against arguments of a particular issue. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient writings support LDS doctrine and teachings

The reference to the story Ancient writings support LDS doctrine and teachings, printed by Deseret News, was removed. The edit summary said "poor source". The Deseret News is a regular newspaper, with the second-highest distribution in Utah. Why is it considered a poor source? Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Joshua, I find the reference lacking. When I read the article it does not provide any references for any of the claims. For this to be an acceptable reference it would be better to find a source that discussed in more depth the papyri found in Egypt that discusses baptism for the dead, or sealings, etc. Essentially, the article cited is not an academic presentation of material, but rather a "faith-promoting" type of article. Does this make sense? --Storm Rider (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
What Storm Rider said. The source should be considered not just for its general reliability, but also for what it actually says. This is not an indictment of Deseret News, or even the Mormon Times. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Dang, you said that perfectly! A logical mind and a word smith. Thank you.--Storm Rider (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Aw, you make me blush. Thanks. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Distilling and moving specific items to main article pages

I am going to begin the process of distilling arguments and moving specific examples to the related main article pages, per the discussions above. I will be very careful about not deleting any references or examples; this is just a matter of reorganizing for flow, etc., not editing for content (critical or apologetic). Please criticize me because I want to be sure I'm doing it right. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay I'm done. Hopefully this will help reduce the necessity of point / counterpoint arguments in this article by moving long lists of specific examples to their respective main article and thereby providing better context to the criticisms and the apologetics, increasing quality overall. Also I hope it helps summarize the criticisms here more succinctly. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent additions

User Udt-21 has repeatedly added content that does not deal with a specific criticism (Stanford ban on playing BYU in 1969, Catholic denial of Mormons' access to parish records) but rather general embarrassments to the church. Because this article is about specific criticisms of the doctrines / history of the church, not about embarrassing events, it has been removed several times, each time with a short explanation, by multiple editors. However, Udt-21 has repeatedly reverted this content, including violation of WP:3RR. I invite Udt-21 to explain here how these quotes fit into the context of this particular article. --TrustTruth (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In fairness to Udt-21, I think I've found a good place for the Vatican statement (still don't know how the Stanford statement fits though; try adding at the Blacks and Mormonism article maybe?). --TrustTruth (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Wait a second - I don't get your reasoning. Aren't you splitting hairs between an embarrassment and a criticism? The Stanford criticism is pretty specific I think - Stanford is the one criticizing, and they are criticizing what they perceive as racial discrimination. Maybe we don't need to go into a great deal of detail, but I think we should mention it at least. Also the baptism for the dead stuff - same thing, it should be mentioned. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It all depends upon what is criticism; does a pithy statement qualify? Should we list every school that chooses not to play another school as criticism. Is criticism all negative statement about someone/thing else? I don't think all negative comments, editorials, or pithy statements merit being listed as criticism. Criticism, in an academic sense, should be the objective and not the more mundane silliness found in common society. In an academic sense, we would attempt analyzing or evaluating the quality of impact upon religion of this religious movement and how it has compared with other groups/denominations. This was the original purpose of the article though it has severely left that more elevated, challenging academic product.
Stating simply that two groups have doctrinal differences is not criticism; it is disagreement over scriptural doctrine. That is the very definition of religion; groups that purport a doctrinal interpretation. There are over 36,000 Christian denominations in the world today; each has a unique, specific interpretation and emphasis of scripture. How does listing doctrinal differences become criticism?
I think it would appropriate criticism to discuss the value baptisms are held among Mormonism and other religions. Here is a small group that completely rejects all baptisms from all other Christian churches. It is not surprising nor interesting that other groups reject their baptisms (that is tit-for-tat), what is critical is understanding the value of apostolic succession and why Mormonism falls completely outside of it. Incidentally, that is the meaning and purpose of Restorationism. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
If anything this paragraph would fit better at the Blacks and Mormonism article, as the rest of the article doesn't really contain lengthy anecdotes about specific criticisms. By the way, the subsection title is not entirely accurate: Stanford was responding to the church's alleged racism, not to BYU's. It's more like a proxy war, with Stanford punishing BYU as a proxy for the church. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The more I read through the article, the more firmly I think that this paragraph about Stanford is totally out of place. It does need to be removed. I'm not against putting in the Blacks and Mormonism article, or in the BYU article. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
If you'll notice, the Catholic criticism was already been incorporated in the article at the beginning of that section. At most this is a doctrinal criticism, and does not in any way approach the level of criticism for baptizing Holocaust victims. There is no criticism in the Vatican's letter about baptizing without permission, it does raise the issue of confidentiality of records, but the criticism specific to the LDS church is doctrinal, nothing more. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Finances section

I understand the criticism of not releasing financials, but I'm not sure where the criticism is in the statements about estimated church assets. Is that just included for shock value? The link to the main Finances article will show the reader this and much more, including a breakdown of several church-owned for-profit businesses. Given that this section is much longer than most others in the article, I'm considering removing most of the statements about assets based on the reasoning above. I would make sure anything removed is fully covered in the related main article. Thoughts? --TrustTruth (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

At one time in the past this was more of an academic criticism of the church rather than a catch-all as it now is. They both have their place; however, an article that does not first seek to titillate or sensationalize will allow the real criticism not to be lost amongst the junk. I appreciate the work you are doing and I support removing everything that is not a criticism.--Storm Rider (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is not a list of the offended

Descartes, you have got to stop adding those inane lists of situations where people were offended or expressed being offended by BYU, LDS, etc. That is not the topic of this article. It is criticism. You really need to spend some time trying to understand what criticism is and what it is not. If you want to make a list of the number of people that don't like BYU, LDS, Mormons, the Church, Joseph Smith, LDS temples, etc., you need to write another article and list all the people in the world who have ever said anything negative and how they expressed it. That is the article for pithy statements by Stanford presidents, athletes who want to protest playing BYU, people of other faiths who think baptisms for the dead mean something, etc. Criticism is thought and actually ideas; there is an analysis that takes place. So much of what you have added is just not what this article is about. Please consider an article of people who are offended by Mormons; this is not it. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point StormRider - I consolidated the section, removing the list, and focusing on what I think the real basis of the criticism is. Please review --Descartes1979 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This belongs at either the BYU article or the Blacks and Mormonism article. It's just too tangential to be included here, as race is already discussed at length. The article is too long to start including anecdotes. --TrustTruth (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)