Talk:Criticism of Mormonism/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

Civil war prophecy

Descartes: regarding the civil war prophecy, what would you think of moving most of that text into Prophecies of Joseph Smith, Jr.? Since this criticism aritcle is more or less a Wikipedia:Summary style article, maybe we could just have 1 sentence on the Civil war prophecy, and say "see Prophecies of Joseph Smith, Jr.#Civil War for more details." What do you think? Noleander (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Descartes1979 (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that this prophecy is still being edited. The critics are unanimous that this is a failed prophecy ... read the cited books. Either the prophecy was about the impending US civil war, in which case it failed in several significant regards (plague, slave rebellion, mulitple nations, etc). Or it is about some future world war, in which case it failed since no world war started "shortly" in South Carolina. Apologists may, I suppose, try to impose some contorted interpretation about two distinct wars, and if we can find a reliable citation for such an interpretation, that interpretation deserves to be mentioned (and already is, in fact). A prophecy that is half wrong is wrong. If I predict you will go to Walmart in 3 days to buy a toaster, and you go to Walmart in 4 days and buy a bicycle, I cannot claim that my prophecy is correct. If you want to go into an extensive discussion of that prophecy, use the Prophecies of Joseph Smith article, because the primary purpose of this article is to document the criticisms of notable critics of the LDS church. As discussed above in the Talk page: the criticisms are stated first in each section, then the rebuttals follow. And everything needs to be cited. Noleander (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The only problem is that now you're starting to participate in the debate. It doesn't matter whose interpretation you feel is contorted. You are right, this article is to document the criticisms, not to state that the criticisms are valid or founded - that's my biggest objection to having the section headings be failed/fulfilled prophecies - "Prophecies" is completely neutral to both sides of the debate and tells the reader the subject of the criticism. If you still want the "Failed" idea in the heading, then something like "Allegations of failed prophecies", but I still feel that the simple "Prophecies" is sufficient. The section still needs some rewriting to make it clear where the historical facts end (such and such statements were made), and where the critics' interpretation begin (interpreted in such and such a way they are failed prophecies). As for the Civil War prophecy in particular, the apologist view can be seen in this review and for how leaders of the LDS church have looked at the prophecy see Joseph Fielding Smith's comments in Signs of the Times, pp 138, 140-41, 149. --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I dont understand your logic. This article is about criticism of the church. The specific criticism here is "many prophecies of the church founder failed". Truncating the title to one word is obscuring the criticism in a POV fashion. Just because an editor doesnt _like_ the criticism is no reason to truncate a title. By definition, every section in this article will be offensive, to some degree, to LDS church members. But our goal here is to create an educational encyclopedia entry. For example, lets say there is a criticism that the church's finances are not tranparent. What is a better section title: "Finances" or "Finances not transparent". The latter is clearly more informative to the reader, and more accurate. It is neutral in that it accurately describes the criticism of several notable critics. You may not like the criticism, but wikipedia is not censored. See WP:CENSOR Noleander (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
How about this for a compromise: We phrase each section titles to clearly indicate that the title is not a statement of fact, such as "Claim that church finances are not transparent" or "Criticism that church finances are not transparent". That way a reader would never misunderstand the titles as statements of fact. This also helps in the situation where there are two distinct criticisms about a single topic, for instance, "Criticsm that polygamy revelation was politically motivated" and "Criticism that polygamy revelation was not enforced". Using single "neutral" words like "Polygamy" for a title would cause those two sections to have identical titles, but using the longer titles would handle those two criticisms that cover similar topics. What do you think? Noleander (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Apologetics?

I am wondering if we should also include a "Criticism of Apologetics" section - what I mean is - there are some things that Mormon researchers put forth as proof of their claims, when in reality they are disputed. For example, Izapa Stela 5, and Chiasmus. Maybe that is getting too in depth, and should be included in the articles themselves, but I thought I would throw it out there and see what you thought.--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion has merit. Perhaps it could be included as a subsection under the existing "Scholarship questioned" section, which addresses non-peer review, etc. Although you are correct that any detailed discussion of those issues (Chiasmus, etc) belongs in the main articles (Linguistics and BoM, etc). Noleander (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
How about a "Criticism of Criticism" section, as some things Mormon critics put forth are sensationalistic rather than honest criticisms. For example, the Tanners' research integrity, which none other than Todd Compton criticized for suppressing historical evidence favorable to the church and having an overly negative bent -- hardly honest scholarship; several of the criticisms laid out in this article are laughable (e.g. Sexual repression, sexism, homophobia -- these concepts are unique to Mormonism?; and genetics? take an honest look (no, seriously, an honest look) at the criticism and the assumptions it is based on -- this one is pretty weak); and pretty much anything Ed Decker spouts. Surely these things would be worthy of their own "Criticism of Criticism" section if we decide to open that box. --TrustTruth (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Couple of thoughts - I actually think a "Criticism of Criticism" section is a good idea in theory (although we should call it something a little less confusing if we actually go down that road). Critics assumptions should be challenged if they are faulty, and if their scholarship is amateur, then it should be questioned. However, I think we get into that already by having an apologetic response to each criticism, and (hopefully) by excluding criticisms that are baseless. I think the thrust of this article is to look at legitimate criticisms and not baseless anti-mormon rhetoric. That having been said - TrustTruth, I have taken an honest look at the genetics debate, and the other things that you find laughable, and I guess I just don't see it that way - but that's your POV and my POV. In order to be NPOV, we have to include both sides of the argument - especially when there is serious research that has been undertaken on the topic.--Descartes1979 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
As with the "Chiasmus" issue, I would suggest that if any critic had faulty data, that should be noted in the relevant section. For instance, if some critic used a genetic study, and that study were found to be flawed, that flaw would be best discussed in the Genetics section, not in a new "Criticism of Criticisms" section. Any generic defects of critics (Tanners, Decker) should probably be included in the (existing) articles dedicated to those individual critics. Noleander (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits by User:Rayhade

The User Rayhade has made some edits in the last couple of days - some of which have been good. However, maybe some of you have noticed, but a revert war started when I requested cites for some of his statements in the Prophesies of Joseph Smith Section. After he insisted on removing my cite requests, I put an Original Research tag on the section, and he has belligerently been removing that as well. A third party also reverted his edits back to my version, so I don't think I am the only person who thinks his edits are inappropriate. I have tried to communicate with Rayhade three times on his talk page, but he won't respond. In an effort to resolve this dispute, I want to open the edits up for discussion and see if we can come to a general consensus.

See Rayhade's talk page, with my messages. See my four edits that he has reverted: [1], [2], [3], [4]

Thanks for taking a look, and hopefully we can get this resolved.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I have also noticed that edits by ip 76.115.84.151 are closely related to the edits by Rayhade, and suspect they are the same person. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with WP:SELFPUB WP:OR and more

The notability and reliability of the sources on both sides must be established. Wikipedia editors should not engage in original research--it is bad for our community. All selfpublished Mormon sources going forward must conform with WP:SELFPUB. A lot of statements on both sides do not rely on Wikipedia's policies for their inclusion. Work within the framework of the rules. There will be less edit warring. I will give five days to cite and defend before I begin deletion. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rayhade, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You must attribute sources and conform to our policy on original research. It should be easy to source these. Please come up with a source in four days. Please do not remove cleanup tags unless you have fixed the problem. I will continue to revert unless you do. It is your responsibility to back up your claims by pointing out the apologists who offer rebuttals so they can be verified. You cannot be "they." That is not the role of editors here. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Statements still uncited

  • Apologists[who?] note that Harris and Cowdery later returned to the fellowship of the church. Additionally, it is widely cited by leaders of the LDS church[who?][citation needed] that none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony as it was written in the Book of Mormon, or denied that Smith was a true prophet when he translated the book[citation needed].
  • Apologists deny those allegations [which state that Joseph Smith, Jr. sought money women and power];[citation needed][who?]
  • Apologists[who?] [addressing anachronisms of the First Vision] respond that the varying accounts were intended for different audiences for different purposes, and as such Smith only spoke of the parts of the vision that were appropriate in each setting.[citation needed]
  • However, apologists[who?][addressing the unfulfillment of Smith's prophecy of Christ's return] cite the same prophecy in D&C 130:14-15, which they interpret was contingent upon Joseph Smith living until he was 85 years old.
  • Apologists[who?][referring to a prophecy] contend[citation needed] that more American blood was shed during the Civil War than during any previous conflict in the history of the United States, and this constitutes a fullfillment of the "bloodshed" portion of the prophecy.[1] They[who?] add[citation needed] that thousands more died of starvation and disease during the course of the war, and during other epidemics thereafter, which fulfills the "famine" and "pestilence" portions of the prophecy.[2][3]And they[who?] refer[citation needed] to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which killed 3,000 people, fulfilling the "earthquake" portion of the prophecy. [4]
  • Apologists[who?][refering to another prophecy] argue[citation needed] that, although some thought there might be a civil war between the federal government and South Carolina due to the Nullification Crisis in 1832, few if any[citation needed] believed that there would be a much larger civil war between the northern states and the southern states.[5] Furthermore, they assert that in 1843 Joseph Smith reaffirmed the prophecy that much bloodshed would begin in South Carolina long after the Nullification Crisis had ended.[6] They also point out that during the Civil War thousands of slaves enlisted in the Union Army where they were "marshaled and disciplined for war."[7] Over all, apologists apply the prophecy to a broader span of time and interpret it to mean that the rebellion of South Carolina and the American Civil War "marked the beginning of the era of war that will last until the Savior returns. . . ," which would include earthquakes, multi-nation warfare, and plagues.[8]
  • Critics[who?] point to various statements made by his polygamous wives as evidence that of impropriety. Sylvia Sessions Lyons, for example, gave an affidavit on her deathbed that her daughter Josephine was fathered by Joseph Smith.[9] Critics[who?] also point out that Brigham Young had 56 children with his 51 wives.[citation needed]
  • Apologists[who?] postulate that the handshakes (or tokens as they are called in the endowment), clothing, symbols, and passwords are of a common ancient origin[citation needed] associated with the Temple of Solomon, and that Freemasonry and Mormonism came into knowledge of these rituals independently of each other.[citation needed]
  • Church officials said that the post-1995 baptisms [for victims of Ha-Shoah] were isolated incidents where individual church members inadvertently failed to follow church policy.[citation needed]
  • The church defends its rules by pointing out that temple admission, for all purposes, is limited to worthy church members, and by noting a church policy that permits couples to have an open house after the wedding, where rings may be exchanged (provided that no vows or ceremonies are performed).[citation needed] (article Mormon wedding open house also devoid of citations)
  • In the United States, churches are not required by law to disclose financial information, and some other churches, such as the Vatican do not disclose information.[citation needed] Most protestant denominations and local Catholic dioceses do provide full financial disclosure to members.[citation needed]
  • Apologists[who?] reply that the LDS church, like any private organization, is entitled to determine its own membership, and that all excommunicated members were excommunicated only after a formal disciplinary hearing.[citation needed]
  • Church leaders also encourage women to obtain education and skills.[citation needed]
  • Apologists[who?] respond that the church has no such doctrine [that women must be received by their husbands to get into Heaven] and that such comments do not represent the official position of the church.[citation needed][original research?]
  • Gordon B. Hinckley has sermonized against racism. He has taught that no one who utters denigrating remarks can consider himself a true disciple of Christ, and noted the irony of racial claims to the "Melchizedek Priesthood."[10]

Couldn't find a RS ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion space for sourcing

I can provide a citation for the following statement from a non-LDS source:
"Additionally, it is widely cited by leaders of the LDS church[who?][citation needed] that none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony as it was written in the Book of Mormon,"
Here is what Richard and Joan Ostling (authors described in the book as "conventional Protestants") state in Mormon America, page 266:
"What is not ambiguous is that, to the end of their lives, none of them disavowed their written testimonies even though most broke with Smith's church. That very apostasy has been used as a debating point in favor of their witness by the Book's defenders." Bochica (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I can use that with proper attribution. Still need authoritative historical sourcing to conclude that Harris and Cowdery actually returned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudeReigns (talk • contribs) 14:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I can fulfill half of your request from the same source, Mormon America, page 338. Regarding Oliver Cowdery, the authors mentions Cowdery's rebaptism into the "[Brigham] Young wing" of the church:
Oliver Cowdery, who had gone Methodist, wrote his fellow witness Whitmer that they joinntly retained LDS authority by right. But he never formally joined Whitmer's group and was rebaptized into the Young wing in 1848 after renouncing his own succession claim but not his monogamist conviction. Bochica (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Does the work provide citation? The Ostlings are journalists, not historians. I found the historical records of Cowdery's Methodism, but not of his return. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I can't find a citation in the book for that particular claim. I'll have to look elsewhere for it.
Will this work?
Cowdery stated: I have not come to seek place, nor to interfere with the business and calling of those men who have borne the burden since the death of Joseph. I throw myself at your feet, and wish to be one of your number, and be a mere member of the Church, and my mere asking to be baptized is an end to all pretensions to authority. "Report to Presidents Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards and the Authorities of the Church," 5 April 1849. This is a reference in a document at Maxwell Institute called "The Return of Oliver Cowdery." Bochica (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This should do for now. Lots of primary sources cited in the source, and deserves a closer look later for further verification. What about Harris? ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's what I've found on Martin Harris' return. Edward Stevenson stated the following in the Millenial Star, 6 Feb. 1882, page 87. "Brother Harris was taught the necessity of being rebaptized. He said that was new doctrine to him. … He claimed that he had not been cut off from the Church, but said if that was required of him it would be manifested to him by the Spirit. Soon after his arrival in Utah he applied by baptism, saying that the Spirit had made known to him that it was his duty to renew his covenant before the Lord. … " “In a short time the baptismal font was prepared, and by his request I baptized him, and President Geo. A. Smith, and Apostles John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Jos. F. Smith and Orson Pratt confirmed him by the laying on of hands, Orson Pratt being mouth.” I found this reference in a 1979 edition of the church magazine The Ensign." Bochica (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Still leery of a primary source (by affiliation) published decades afterward, but hey, it's a citation. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this statement: "However, apologists[attribution needed][addressing the unfulfillment of Smith's prophecy of Christ's return] cite the same prophecy in D&C 130:14-15, which they interpret was contingent upon Joseph Smith living until he was 85 years old." The statement may be incorrectly worded to imply that Smith stated definitively that Christ would return to Earth by that time. However, according to History of the Church, Vol. V., p. 336, Smith says this regarding the statement: "I took the liberty to conclude that if I did live to that time, He would make His appearance. But I do not say whether He will make His appearance [on Earth] or I shall go where He is" The sentence from the article states that apologists cite the contingency that he would have to live until he was 85 years old, but it was Smith himself that originally stated the contingency. If anything, apologists would more likely conclude that the statement was fulfilled by Smith going "where he [Christ] is," although I have not yet located an apologetic source for this. Bochica (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Mischief managed": I redid the citations so pages within the book are easily navagable by citation clicking. Only the first citation is the full citation, and subsequent mention includes authors, title, and page number only. The refs are only named if same page sequence is used for other citations. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources without proven notability

Discussion of source notability

Requested Articles

The following articles are requested to establish the notability of sources at Criticism of Mormonism:

Saw the speedy delete. If noted at all, he should be "a volunteer at FARMS" ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles which meet certain criteria could be featured on the front page of Wikipedia! Remember that some of the issues that the persons and sources listed have addressed can be controversial, so please remember to review the guidelines for such articles. Thank you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Extremely good idea. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, we are almost halfway through this. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Example of Mormon racism

from http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml:

"Elder MARK E. PETERSON

Race Problems -- As They Affect The Church Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.

God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be in sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death....

The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a "Nation of Priesthood holders"....

The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth....We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject....

I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace"....

Now let's talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation....

When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation....

Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them....

The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there....

Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, "what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Only here we have the reverse of the thing -- what God hath separated, let not man bring together again."

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.73.251 (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference check needed

Maybe I'm wrong, but is it even plausible that so many references in this article come from an eight-page section of a 200+ page book about Mormons? I'm referring to several references to the Ostlings' book, currently annotated as follows: "a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u Ostling, Richard and Joan (1999). Mormon America. Harper Collins, 278-285. ISBN 0060663715." That's 21 references from disparate parts of the article. Would someone with a copy of this book mind checking these references? If they all come from this book, then fine. I'm not arguing with the content. However, it appears to be sloppy citing. A good citation would obviously reference the exact page(s) in the book the content / quote / idea came from. What's needed is to clean up the citations so they refer to the correct page in the Ostling's book. Like I said, I might be wrong. Thanks a lot. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like poor scholarship to rely so much on a single book. It appears that someone is mightily impressed with the Ostling's, but they are far from the best in this field; probably just the last book someone read. Hopefully, these citations can be pared back and other critics can be used. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Given Richard Ostling's impressive reputation in mainstream religious journalism and his wife's background in the intelligence community, it's likely that the book is a good source and well-cited itself. Where possible, their original sources should also be presented for support and further verification. A good journalist always leaves the possibility that any possible errors can be traced to its attribution... which is why I edit as I do. I'm guessing that copy for copy, it is also the most read of all our outside sources. If one wishes to understand our world as an object, to paraphrase Brigham Young, criticism of Mormonism rightly begins here, and not the Institute of Religious Research, which would be of the barest notice had not the Utah papers given attention to them. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my issue isn't all the referencing to one book; it's that this book seems to be the catch-all when an editor wants to "cite" a critic's argument. There's no way all those citations come from those same eight pages (278-285), especially when the whole book is about Mormonism. I'm very skeptical. I invite someone to prove me wrong. --TrustTruth (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This could be time consuming. I have the Ostling book, so I'll check these as I have time. Here's Ostling citation "a": Harper Collins published Mormon America by Richard and Joan Ostling which states that non-LDS scholars have concluded that translations of surviving papyri which they believe are portions of the source of the Book of Abraham are unrelated to the content of the book's text.

This is discussed in Mormon America on pages 281-282. The statement above is incomplete however - it does not mention that the Ostlings point out that LDS scholar Hugh Nibley (who was not a trained Egyptologist) had identified the papyrus fragments as being from the Book of the Dead and that this was published along with photos of the papyrii in a church magazine prior to the papyrii being examined by non-LDS Egyptologists. The statement leads the reader to believe that the church said nothing and that "non-LDS Egyptologists" concluded that they were unrelated to Abraham's writings, without mentioning that Nibley, a well known LDS apologist, stated the same thing first. Bochica (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ostling citation "b": Richard and Joan Ostling point out that this reversal of policy occurred as the LDS church began to expand outside the United States into countries such as Brazil that have large, ethnically mixed populations and as the church prepared to open a new temple in São Paulo, Brazil. This is found in Mormon America, page 95. Bochica (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ostling citations "c" and "d": The Ostlings further point to the fact that soon after the church received the revelation that Polygamy was prohibited, Utah again applied for statehood, and this time the federal government did not object to starting the statehood process. Six years later, the process completed and Utah became a state in 1896. AND The Ostlings also point out that soon after the church renounced polygamy, the federal government reduced its legal efforts to seize church property. Both are found in Mormon America on pages 78-79, and these pages are noted in the citations contained in the article, but they don't show up in the article text. I am not familiar with how this type of citation works. A technical error in the way the citation is structured? The pages are definitely noted in the article. Bochica (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Money digging" definition

I have been searching and searching for a definition of the term "money digging" and cannot find the term mentioned except in the context of criticisms of Joseph Smith. As such, would it be going out on a limb to say that the term "Money digging" is Mormon critic jargon, something that Wikipedia strives to avoid? I think a better term would be "treasure hunting". Any thoughts? Can anyone provide a reference to the term "money digging" in a different context? Thanks. --TrustTruth (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that's a attempt to distinguish from not supernatural means of treasure hunting? *shrug* Closer analogy would be "gold dowsing" but that's still a characterization... such that the notable critics characterizing Smith's behavior as such is itself notable. Perhaps someday one enlightened soul can enlighten us as to why this particular language was used. What should we call this? A paleoneologism? :D ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am cool with whatever wording changes you guys decide - perhaps "Treasure hunter" is more appropriate, and is a terminology that people will understand a little easier. As far as quotes go, this is the only one I have been able to find (lifted from Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.:

  • "'Was not Joseph Smith a money digger?' Yes, but it was never a very profitable job for him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it." -- Joseph Fielding Smith - Smith, Joseph Fielding (1976), Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, ISBN 0-87747-626-8.
I actually saw that one too, but assumed the statement was made in the spirit of answering critics' use of the term. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It was said specifically for that purpose, and it was Joseph Smith Jr. himself that made this statement - he was talking about himself in the third person while answering a list of questions. This was his joking response about people referring to him as a "money digger." Bochica (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Amateur

A recent edit added the adjective "amateur" back to the description of a couple apologists, with the reasoning that "both of these guys are amateurs, neither having a degree in history, theology, or anything related to mormonism - they are well known as amateurs." However, if we apply that same standard to, say, Richard Abanes -- who (unless I'm wrong) is a trained dancer, with no degree in history, theology, or anything related to Mormonism -- then he would qualify as an amateur as well. We could go down that road but it just seems less murky to just drop the amateur word altogether. Thoughts? --TrustTruth (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the amateur reference until we can come to a consensus of why the designation is important to note and what qualifies an individual to be named an amateur. I have searched the archives and can't find any past discussion of this. Thanks a lot. --TrustTruth (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason I added amateur to Jeff Lindsay and Ash was because I think this article has a general problem with compliance to WP:Sources. We have on both sides of the argument a bunch of critics and apologists that are not notable, or they self-publish their thoughts on the Internet, etc. I would like to see both sides of the fence cleaned up to include real scholarly criticisms and rebuttals. Jeff Lindsay for example, can be replaced by Hugh Nibley and B. H. Roberts. In short, I added those phrases to help spur us into finding some really solid citations. Maybe it was a bad idea to go about it that way, but there it is - and I think it can be useful to show what is notable and what is not - and perhaps we can get the wikipedia community to help us clean it up. As a side note, as I look into Richard Abanes, I think he is notable enough, his wikipedia article describes him as an award winning journalist, and religious lecturer. Maybe he doesn't have a degree, but he does not self publish, and has gained the notability that someone like Ash lacks. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Just another bit of perspective on this discussion, we started running into this problem as we were creating the requested articles - as listed in the "Requested Articles" section above. The Michael Ash article was deleted by the wikipedia community because it wasn't notable enough. Not that all sources HAVE to have their own wikipedia article, just that it uncovered one of the problems with non-notable sources. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a suggestion for getting around the non-notability of certain FAIR contributors. Because FAIR itself is notable, perhaps instead of citing the FAIR contributor we could just cite FAIR as the source. There is obviously a body of Mormon critics (Abanes, Sandra Tanner, etc.) whose full-time career (at least partially) entails criticizing Mormon doctrines, history, and practices. However, there is not a similar body of Mormon apologists. I don't know if it's related to Mormons having a lay ministry or what, but I guess it is what it is. You're just not going to find many professional Mormon theologians, unfortunately. (The most recent addition to the quorum of the twelve is a healthcare executive, for example.) This whole idea of professional vs. amateur may be best addressed in an opening paragraph, where we could place the critics and apologists in their own context. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the suggestion of attributing FAIR. Also agree with attribution of amateurs to spur better sources as an alternative to deletion. If however we are ready to start deleting poorly sourced statements, I will help and promise not to favor a side. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100% --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Another thought - I suspect that most, if not all, of the apologetic stances could be traced back to a church leader, or a prominent LDS scholar like Nibley, Roberts, or someone at FARMS like Tvedness, or Gee. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttals

Maybe it's just me, but I've noticed that a lot of the rebuttals that used to be existent in the article are now gone. I remember one in particular that I just noticed was missing -- the rebuttal on the Erastus Snow statement about women getting into the celestial kingdom. All editors need to remember that this article needs to hold a neutral point of view. We have already agreed (see the discussion archives) that this means each criticism deserves a rebuttal. This means we should not be deleting apologetic rebuttals, but instead should try to include and clarify them. Thanks. --TrustTruth (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as rebuttals are well-sourced and attributed, I definitely support them. Will you please return this to the article? ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
A lot of rebuttals were removed because no one could source them for a long time. I personally added a lot of rebuttals from my own perspective, that I knew off the top of my head, hoping that someone would be able to fill in the cites later on, but in a lot of cases that never happened. Please add them back if you have sources. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is the criticism?

The following statement does not contain criticism; instead it is more a "wisdom of repugnance" appeal to emotion: "Richard Abanes claims that Smith had at least thirty-three wives, not merely seven." Because this article is about criticisms of Mormonism, and because this statement contains no criticism (and is not related to the statements around it), I am removing the statement. Abanes' claim would be better served in the Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy article. --TrustTruth (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This is another example of allegations of errant historical accuracy within Mormonism. It also serves to substantiate 'Money Women and Power' criticisms of Joseph Smith, Jr. In the context of Abanes' other works, it seems reasonable to consider this a criticism. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That may be your interpretation of Abanes' statement, but unless Abanes says what you just said, it's original research.--TrustTruth (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Kitchen sink

Is this an article about everything that has ever been said? Some things that I would consider fringe criticism are given the same status as more legitimate positions held by majority critics. Quinn does not often stay in the middle of criticism and can be considered fringe on some things. Thoughts? --Storm Rider (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying Quinn is fringe or Quinn's argument on gays is fringe? I'm not sure Quinn himself is fringe. Ed Decker on the other hand... I'd say if consensus around the definition of a fringe critic could be built and fringe critics could be identified, a better place for their criticisms would be the Anti-Mormonism article. That would be consistent with WP:FRINGE because it would place the criticisms in context. That being said, I do agree with your identification of Quinn as an openly gay critic, given the nature of his criticism. --TrustTruth (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Quinn is not fringe; he is reputable historian that occasionally has fringe ideas. This article has become a catch-all for anything that has ever been said. It is almost impossible for a reader to differentiate between something that is recognized as common and something that is more fringe in nature. I am not sure how to rectify this now, but this is very dissimilar to all other comparable articles. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Which statements and sources are fringe? I hope I've made it easier to identify which is which. Please point these out specifically so that they may be addressed. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Start with the Quinn quote/information on homosexuality. At no time in the history of the church was homosexuality condoned. It was always taught as to be contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. However, Quinn has concocted this concept that it was not looked upon negatively. That is fringe; no one supports that position that legitimately addresses the question in its entirety. Quinn has created something out of whole cloth.
This is the problem; just because something is referenced does not mean it is not fringe. Both of us can quote someone that still thinks the earth is flat, but that does not mean he/she should be quoted in an article on the circumference of the earth. The majority position of historians is what should be addressed and not what the single or few think; that is the concept of fringe. Also, what is unique about the LDS position regarding homosexuality? Every other major Christian church condemns the acts of homosexuality, but his article phrases the criticism as if it is unique to Mormons. Is this criticism of Mormonism or Christianity as a whole? --Storm Rider (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Some more points:
  1. Abanes rather unique definition of cult. Why aren't we using standard defintions rather than that of Abanes, an individual with no college degree? He writes books for Evangelists and is not recognized as an expert, except by those who buy his sensational books. Let's stick to educated people; those who are recognized by all as reputable.
  2. What is Christianiy? The artcile states that the Bible answer man's group accuses the LDS church of not being Christian because it uses other books of scripture. Nowhere in Christiandom is Christianity defined as a religion that only believes in set books of scripture. The reason being is that Catholics and Protestants don't agree on what is canon. This is not a common definition, but is a unique definition used by this group.
Everytime I start reading this article it makes my head hurt. It is just so bad. Everything is thrown in with no appreciation for legitimate criticism and that which is best suited for the Evangelical National Enquirer or other less than respectable criticism of religion. This reads like a tract, rather than criticism. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
From what I have read, Quinn is a very well respected LDS historian - If we are going to allege that any of his ideas are fringe then they need to be well sourced - and I am not talking FARMS review of books, which is very biased. I wonder if Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought has articles about homosexuality in the early church - I would wager that it does.--Descartes1979 (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Storm Rider - this article, though it may be flawed, is a VAST improvement upon what it was about 4 months ago when I stumbled upon it - back then it read like an LDS missionary tract. Perhaps you can elaborate why it is so bad? I actually think that this article should not exist, and should be integrated with all of the LDS articles on each topic - but that proposal was shot down by a number of editors. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
How does Abanes define a cult? His article is rather unencyclopedic, BTW ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Kim Seiver

The restrictions in WP:SELFPUB clearly point out two exceptions to use of primary sources which this source violates:

  • it is not contentious;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties

the spirit of these provisions is to eliminate battle within namespace. Of particular offense in this violation of WP:V is the use of an ad hominem argument. You may challenge the inclusion of the source she rebuts, but the nature of this inclusion goes against even WP:BATTLE, and so will be removed entirely. Much better, if the source critical of Blood Oaths cannot be successfully challenged, is simply to find a Mormon source which addresses the criticism of Blood Oaths without disparaging the critic. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you expect when she is answering the critics? Of course she'll mention a third party. The critical response to this is that they're using subjective definitions -- hardly ad hominem.--TrustTruth (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That is not what the article stated. It made an explicit claim about the good faith of the unnamed critics. Furthermore, with poor attribution the statement can be read to imply that all critics of Blood Oaths are only criticizing Blood Oaths because they are trying to advance an agenda. This isn't encyclopedic. This is for blogs, this is for criticisms of whichever sources she disparages on their respective pages if it would satisfy WP:V there. It does not here. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, it's not self-published; it's effectively a FAIR article. Therefore the WP:SELFPUB standard you've cited does not apply. Secondly, the article makes no mention of blood oaths, and doesn't even contains the words 'blood' or 'oath'. Siever is simply arguing that web sites that publish articles spreading the message that the church is a cult use subjective definitions of the term in order to further that message. That is not a personal attack on critics; it's an attack on their methods. Now, I don't know how the blood oath thing somehow became attributed to her, so the removal of that part of the sentence is justified. However, her response to the cult claim is certainly apropo. I am going be so bold as to reinclude it (and improve the citation). --TrustTruth (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, while re-including the rebuttal I saw how you might interpret her questioning critics' motives. I removed the direct quote from her article, and I think the thrust of the rebuttal still comes across: that critics use subjective definitions of the term. Nice discussing with you.--TrustTruth (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Gads, I was so offended by that article once I really read it. What a strawman argument! (Michael Langone isn't even accusing Mormonism of being a cult, and Kim Siever proves inept at understanding the surrounding concepts) Here's a great example of how cultic studies aren't just subjective: Myers-Briggs personality inventories of members of the International Churches of Christ showed that the members of that group actually lost their personalities and assumed the same personality type as their "disciplers." (Henegar, Richard J. "Discipling Churches of Christ: An Assessment of Pre, Peak, and Post Involvement of Former Members using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator." Ph.D. Dissertation, United States International University, 1992.) The phenomenon is quantifiable. I doubt this applies to Mormonism in the same way, but I think FARMS really crossed the line into spreading ignorance with this one. The FARMS article is just a claim, and a misplaced and harmful one at that. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit, are we reading the same article? Siever never says Langone is a critic. He is simple taking Langone's definition of a cult and applying it to the church and to Christianity as a whole. By the way, that actually has nothing to do with the sentence cited in this wikipedia article. The sentence cited is only related to the opening paragraph of the Siever's paper, where he(and by extension FAIR) argues that critics use subjective definitions of the word "cult". Period. He's not saying Langone uses subjective definitions; he's saying critics use subjective definitions. He is using Langone's definition to argue AGAINST the idea the church is a cult. Therefore, the statement "Siever argues that critics use subjective definitions of the term 'cult'" is entirely appropriate. Inserting "psychologists" in place of "critics" frankly makes so sense. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's still a big fat strawman and Siever even calls the definitions objective, not subjective. As if to say, "Look at me be a psychological quack." It's somewhat like denying an allegation that Tom Cruise had a manic episode on Oprah because L. Ron Hubbard jumped on a couch once. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I still wonder if we're reading the same article. Siever criticizes subjective use of cult definitions, period. Later he applies an objective definition to the church and to Christianity. I'll quote directly from the article: "There are many Web sites on the Internet devoted to spreading the message that the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints is a cult. Oftentimes these 'articles' use subjective definitions of the word cult in order to further their message" (emphasis added). I do not see how or where the author is using a straw man argument. He is not misrepresenting critics' position, he is criticizing the methods the critics use to sell others on their position. He then goes on to apply what he believes is an objective definition to both the LDS Church and to Christianity as a whole to show that when you pick up one end of the "Mormonism is a cult" stick, you pick up the other as well. I invite you to show me where the straw man argument is. I won't address your personal attack on the author. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The strawman argument is apparent especially in the part about prayer and meditation when used to suppress doubt about the group and its leaders. Seiver conveniently misses that part of the equation, simply saying, "Prayer is encouraged among Latter-Day Saints." Totally ridiculous. There's a difference between praying in your closet and when a leader uses prayer and his authority to dispel an uncomfortable conversation. What Langone refers to is the "Look! A baby deer!" tactic that cult leaders use because it's an easy out for criticism, specifically applied to control tense situations which challenge their authority. This is just one example of how Seiver shows no intent to understand Langone and gives a false impression of his work. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Abanes

For inclusion in this article, we're really going to have to support Abanes as an expert of some kind, and I would hope it would be done at his article. Just a little embarrassed to be relying on this kind of "cult expert." ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Blood Oath part of the criticism that Mormonism is cult-like

The Blood Oath stuff was added by me, and was originally unattributed (I added it way back during the rebirth of this article, in an effort to fill out the content more accurately, and hoping that someone could find a source to back it up) - through the different iterations of this article, I think it mistakenly got attributed to Kim Siever. I have seen this criticism before, so it is just a matter of finding it, and as such, I think it should be included. I am trying to find some time to do the research to find it. Perhaps someone can help me out? --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally consider it anti-Mormon bomb-throwing rather than a valid criticism. ClaudeReigns, you're looking for examples of straw man arguments -- the "you used blood oaths therefore you're a cult" claim is a perfect example. Set up the blood oath in the worst possible light, apply a cult definition, and voila -- the church is a cult. Sorry, not going to help you on that. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Come now - you seriously think that the Blood Oath's are not a valid argument? Of course this is my POV, but the Blood Oaths are so inherently controversial that I can't see how anyone could think they are just blithering anti-Mormon rhetoric.--Descartes1979 (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The cult definitions of Langone, etc., do not specifically apply to matters of ceremony (we assume that worshippers participate of their own free will unless coercion is indicated). This seems to apply more to secret societies, perceptions of occultism, etc. I'd be interested in reading the specific criticisms that don't merely evidence hemophobia on the part of the author. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying those vestiges of the 19th century are not inherently controversial, especially when viewed in the present-day context; that is not my point. We are agreed on that and I am not arguing it. Apparently the church agrees too, hence the removal from the ceremony. What I am saying is that citing them as evidence the church is a cult is to make a weak (à la straw man) argument. Obviously I can't stop you from digging up a reliable source of someone citing the oaths as evidence the church is a cult. However, in my opinion it is inherently a bad-faith criticism that would not improve this article (bad-faith criticisms belong at the anti-Mormon article). --TrustTruth (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait, what is wrong with Blood Oaths? And I was under the impression the church merely toned them down. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, the Blood Oaths have been criticized since they require death penalties to those that do not obey the covenants that people make in the temple - one of which includes dedicating "all of your time, talent, and energy to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and building up of the kingdom of God on the earth". (This covenant remains in the endowment ceremony, but the penalty has since been removed). This has struck some as cult-like.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
To a fair person (perhaps a non-Christian) whom this has struck as cult-like, Acts 4:34-35 and Acts 5:1-11 must also strike as cult-like! The people were to consecrate all their stuff to the church, two didn't, and God killed them! v. 11 "And great fear came upon all the [cult]..." --TrustTruth (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - that sounds cult-like to me (though we all agree that the definition of a "cult" is somewhat nebulous). (warning here comes my personal POV): I always find it so sad that religions have to rely on threats of death in order to gain power and money, and even sadder that people buy into those threats so completely and without question. It is exactly this kind of mind set that (in its most extreme forms) leads to catastrophes such as the Waco Siege, the massacre at Jonestown, and to a certain extent the Mountain Meadows Massacre -- that is, people are set on a path of not questioning their leaders, with disastrous consequences. --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You sound cynical about religion in general. You have to realize that we 21st Century people are, in general, softies when it comes to death. Up until about 100 years ago, newlyweds were almost guaranteed to lose at least one child to death. Death by disease was prevalent, and even a bad infection was often fatal. I definitely don't think Jesus's apostles were after money and power. Neither were Martin Luther or Joseph Smith for that matter. However, there are/were MANY bad seeds out there. Just look into European history and see what some of the Catholic bishops were doing (I am not anti-Catholic btw). Your examples also work. As far as the B.O., I personally have no problem with something symbolic like a blood oath, but then again I'm pretty open-minded and try to view things in their historical context. I don't blame the church for taking it out because (1) not everyone thinks like me and (2) contrary to common belief, the endowment is not set in stone. The general idea is (i.e. presenting the plan of salvation and binding people with covenants to live it), but Joseph Smith challenged Brigham Young to make the presentation better. Of course it's going to have elements, then, that are a product of their time -- like the blood oaths. I'm optimistic that most religionists are good people. Most of the bell curve is normal. --TrustTruth (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You know, I didn't really realize that but I think you are right - I am a little cynical about religion in general, although in my comment before I should have clarified as I don't think that all religions are out to get power and money. However, don't take that to mean that I think religionists are bad people. I am a strong believer that the vast majority of people in this world are good, or at least try their best to be. Well, now that I have cleared the air, maybe I don't have to go to my counselor this week :). --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad I could help. That'll be $300. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Parallelomania

This is a criticism of Nibley's research, not of the LDS Church. Is this article now morphing into not just the criticism of the church's doctrines, programs, and history, but also a criticism of the research methods of one of its apologists? We're adding this while the heavy lifting of the article's criticisms is still being done by a former dancer with no college degree? (By the way, the unencyclopedic term "parallelomania" -- POV on its face BTW -- could aptly be ascribed to apologists of nearly any faith.) I suggest we avoid the kitchen sink approach here -- this section does not belong. --TrustTruth (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Belongs at Nibley. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, the other section, "Scholarship questioned", is a criticism of FARMS. Fine. Belongs at the FARMS article. But because FARMS is not an official voice of the LDS church, criticism of that organization does not belong in this article. It muddies the water. I tagged the Nibley section and this section. --TrustTruth (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I moved the two sections to their respective articles (Hugh Nibley and FARMS).--TrustTruth (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second - I think you jumped the gun a little bit TrustTruth. Lets discuss this for a little bit first.

  1. According to wikipedia: FARMS "is formally part of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, formerly known as the Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts at Brigham Young University (BYU), which is operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Based on this, criticism of FARMS and BYU is by extension a valid criticism of the church, since they are entities operated by it. To exclude this criticism wholly is a disservice to the completeness of the information in the article IMO.
  2. I can see how the parallelomania section is more appropriate in its current state in the Hugh Nibley article. However, perhaps I should have worded it better, because the article from Dialogue begins by criticizing Mormon scholarship in general:

"There has been an exegetical trend during the last several decades to draw endless parallels to text from the ancient Near East and beyond in an attempt to validate the writings in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. The pioneer and leader in this effort has been the great LDS scholar Hugh Nibley. In recent years the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) has continued this legacy. The number of parallels that Nibley has been able to uncover from amazingly disparate and arcane sources is truly staggering. Unfortunately, there seems to be a neglect of any methodological reflection or articulation in this endeavor."

As you can see from this quote, Salmon was criticizing the "endeavor" of drawing parallels in general, although he notes that Nibley was the leader in the effort. As such, I think that this is also a valid item to be included in the article, albeit worded differently. Until we come to a consensus, I am going to revert your recent changes, and try and reword the parallelomania section.

  • Other thoughts -
    • I have a variety of articles that criticize Gee, Tvedtness, and Jeff Lindsay, among others. If we are going to include a "criticism of scholarship" section, then I would think we should include these as well - but I can see why we wouldn't want to - perhaps focusing on the criticism of Mormon scholarship in general?
    • This brings me to my next point - As I have stated before, the information in this article should really be a part of all of the other articles on Mormonism, rather than a POV fork like it is right now. But that idea has been shot down repeatedly. If we keep this article separate, then I believe the article should be as comprehensive as possible.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, not even BYU is an official voice of the church (example: BYU's censoring of the Rodin exhibit, when Pres. Hinckley expressed that he wouldn't have censored it, but that BYU was free to make its own policies) so a criticism of BYU would not necessarily be a criticism of the church as a whole, let alone criticism of a small auxiliary of BYU, FARMS. It's just a huge stretch to say otherwise. This article is about criticism of the LDS Church, which encompasses its doctrines, policies, history, etc. Secondly, the article is long enough. We don't need to be stretching like this to include as much as possible. I agree with you that much of the content of this article should be incorporated into other articles. Re-including criticisms of FARMS and couching them as criticisms of the church as a whole is a move in the wrong direction. The same goes for the Hugh Nibley section. Don't forget that many (if not most) Sunstone participants are Mormons themselves. Therefore, their criticisms of Hugh Nibley or FARMS are not a criticism of the LDS Church as a whole (as they would be criticizing themselves), they are instead a criticism of a subset of Mormon intellectualism. Their criticisms therefore belong in their subjects' respective articles, not in this one. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Couple of thoughts: My understanding of this article is that it is a criticism of Mormonism as an ideology, movement, and collection of individuals and doctrines - not the LDS church in particular, though it is obviously not exempt. FARMS is by far the most recognized pro-Mormon scholarly establishment - and has received a lot of criticism from other scholarly sources. To me, this puts criticism of scholarship squarely in the scope of this article. Perhaps we can summarize it, and put a Main article link to point back to the FARMS article, but I think this information should at least be mentioned. Second, I don't quite buy the thought that BYU and FARMS are independent of the LDS church - the head of BYU is appointed by the Apostles, and the staffing of FARMS is directed by the head of BYU. The Rodin example is a little tenuous I think because it involved personal judgment, not policy or doctrine - if someone at BYU were to do something that was in direct contradiction to the church's doctrine or policy, I think action by the church would be swift and uncompromising. Finally, you imply that members of the church would not criticize the church itself? Why not? I am a member of the church, and I criticize many of its policies and doctrines, as do many scholars - Hugh Nibley included. --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This goes back to a fundamental problem with this article. It 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)
I would disagree with you on this Descartes, BYU and the church are not one and the same. The church is slow at times or even negligent when it comes to clarifying doctrine. You may remember Bruce R. McConkie book, Mormon Doctrine. It was his book, but it was often interpreted as actual Mormon doctrine, when in fact it was not. The book had many errors of doctrine within it and it was not corrected until much later and is still not the final book on actual Mormon doctrine.
The church seems to ebb and flow when it comes to correcting individuals and doctrine. At times, it can be mercurial and at others almost blind to what is said. If there is a problem here it is that there are no paid, recognized, scholars of the church that carry the seal of approval by the head of the church. No one outside of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve can speak on behalf of the prophet as to doctrine. None of the scholars at BYU can do that or at any other institution including FARMS?Maxwell Institute. They speak their learned opinion, but that is all. Sometimes identifying actual doctrine can be like playing with mercury; it may never be quite what it seems because is like some things can never be completely grasped.
As far as members critizing the church and its leaders; I would be a wealthy man if I had a penny for every time I have uttered and thought about those bozos in Salt Lake and some of the silliness that comes out. I have to believe that the church has evolved a bureauray that not even the Brethren know what the left or right hand is doing at times. The Brethren only get glimpses of what is going on because they live in such a sheltered environment. Do we critize? Of course. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have issues with certain BYU sports recruiting practices from the 1990s. Would this article then be an appropriate place for those criticisms? :) --TrustTruth (talk) 20:35, 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)

Other criticism articles

I invite someone to re-create the Criticism of the Southern Baptist Convention article. I started it months ago, but felt physically ill when I hit the "Save page" button on the first edit. I felt like by creating the article I would be indirectly undermining others' faith. I checked back a while ago, and the article had been deleted. Why the article didn't exist already, I don't know. There are plenty of criticisms out there. I don't know the persuasion of the regulars at this article, but if you have the stomach for it I invite you to recreate that article, or something similar (say Criticism of Evangelicalism) in the spirit of maintaining a Wikipedia-wide neutral point of view. I don't think I could bring myself to add criticisms to such an article; however, I could work to keep it honest, just like I try to help keep this one honest. Any takers? --TrustTruth (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Weird. I was just thinking about those guys today. God bless them; I think I'd like to help write about their criticisms :P Not ready to dive in yet, will do some research though. What a broad and challenging topic. BTW, shouldn't that read "coincidentally edifying others' skepticism?" 8D Sara Diamond certainly had a page or two about them. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a huge Criticism of Christianity article. Maybe they figured most of the criticisms were already covered there. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. Did notice the following linked from that article: Christian evangelist scandals. Might be a good jumping-off point for a separate article. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I went and looked at the version of the article you created and it doesn't surprise me that it was deleted. Your 'criticism' was entirely directed at a single person, and could easily have gone into the article about him. If you think there is really substantial criticism that can be directed at the SBC and is not directed at individual members and is different from the criticism applied to Christianity as a whole then I would feel free to recreate the article. But don't forget to apply NOV and get good references. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right -- it was the very first "save page" of the article. The reason I chose him was because he had been a high-ranking member of the convention (I don't recall -- was he a president?), therefore I reasoned his actions tended to reflect on the convention as a whole. At least that was my thought process at the time, and the article was in a very preliminary phase. I don't blame anyone for deleting it either. It wasn't worth much in the state I left it. After that first edit or so I abandoned the article. Felt sick to my stomach. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

POV Dispute

TrustTruth, you have initiated a POV dispute. Please "address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies" per WP:NPOVD. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We've established on this talk page that rebuttals are the expectation. There is not a rebuttal accompanying each criticism. Therefore the article is not neutral. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)