Talk:Mormonism and violence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on March 11, 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
 |
This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
|
[edit] Mormonism and violence
The dispute on the neutrality of the page "Mormonism and violence". Please feel free to add to the discussion.
Are the claims factual according to reasonable and objective standards? Would they stand up to academic scrutiny? To focus on one aspect of a subject may not be motivated by neutrality, but if the material presented in Wikipedia is backed up by reasonable standards of fact then that should not be barrier to presentation. If pursuit of a subject is not motivated by neutrality and the material is mythic or otherwise unsubstantiated, that is certainly a barrier. Peterdadams (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Some of the claims may be factual (always debateable), but this article is in no way reasonable. IE: The first statement that Mormons approve of murder in certain circumstances is absolutely false. The author has taken one piece of Mormon scripture--Never mind the accounts of deaths and "murder" that run through out the new and old testaments--and twisted it to read in a very negative and absolutely false light. This type of misleading word smithing is prevalent through out the document. The Mormons were--and still are--hated and overwhelmingly more times than not were the recipients of violence than the administers of violence. This article uses loose interpretation and false statements to paint an incorrect picture of Mormons and their current beliefs. Kielvon 21:11, 14 April 2008
[edit] Blood oaths
User:Storm Rider deleted the section on "blood oaths" in the temple saying the section was "redundant" and "the same" as something, but he didn't say what. There must be some confusion, because I don't see the deleted section discussed anywhere else in the article. But Storm Rider has a history of opposing the existence of Blood oath (Latter Day Saints) too at Talk:Blood oath (Latter Day Saints), so I'm not wholly convinced that he didn't know fully what he was doing in deleting the section. What's up with this kind of editing? If you want to edit material to make it better, then do so, but don't perform wholesale deletions of material for spurious reasons. This stuff is part of the history of Mormonism and just because current members may feel some discomfort or awkwardness in seeing it discussed does not mean the rest of us are doing it for "titilation", as has been suggested. Snocrates 08:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Focus
Is there a reason this article focuses almost entirely on violence by Mormons, or on Mormon philosophy that justifies violence? The section on violence against Mormons is very short, yet their history is one of being violently persecuted. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
