Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Mormonism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeAnti-Mormonism was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Reply by Alanyst

[edit]

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

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

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

Let me briefly address your four questions.

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

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

I would say that anyone who calls the Mormon church a "cult" is anti-Mormon. And I would go so far as to say it is just as vile as anything anti-Semetic or similar. Bytebear 19:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do find the term cult offensive, but I don't necessarily think of a person who uses the term descriptively as an anti-Mormon. To me an anti-Mormon demonstrates an intense hate for the LDS religion. They no longer think, study, or hear any information that contradicts their position. It is no longer a philosophical conversation, but it is emotional position that paints in complete black. For example, I have many catholic and other Christian friends that have used the term cult, but I do not view them as anti-Mormon. I know others who use cult and have a barrage of pieces of information and yet have no understanding of Mormonism, but they know that they hate it, that it is a stain on religion, and it should be stamped out.
I acknowledge others as anti-Mormon by the quality of the things they say. It is readily apparent when an editor has read an anti-Mormon website and is parroting what they have read. There is no understanding, there is no thinking or logic present in their position, it is simply Mormonism is a cult because they say so.
Cult is purposely used by some people to be offensive. Anti-Mormon is not used to be offensive, but to call a spade a spade. Most anti-Mormons are proud of being anti-Mormon and they where the term as acknowledgement of their advanced knowledge. What I find surprising is when someone wants to act like an anti-Mormon and does not want to acknowledge their position. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, someone has to have some understanding of Mormonism to be considered anti-Mormon? Calling Mormonism a cult is done by three groups. 1) the ignorant, 2) those who know better and 3) those who choose to distort the facts. All three do it from an anti-Mormon position. Bytebear 21:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. No other alternatives than your suggestions of #1, #2, or #3?! How about "those who believe Mormons are wrong." At least it isn't pejorative. 67.185.162.109 (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine someone calling Islam or Judaism a "cult." The argument that it's used by "those who believe that Muslims / Jews are wrong" won't fly with most reasonable people. Without providing concrete evidence, it's a meaningless buzz-word. 69.162.253.105 (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think many, if not most, who use it do so out of ignorance. That hear their minister state that we are a cult and viola, LDS are cult members. I tend to begin asking questions at that point; what do you mean by cult?; did you know that Christianity after the time of Christ was called a cult?, etc. Wehn you dig down into undersatnding their definitions you readily find out the individual has virtually no knowledge and are only parroting their minister. These people I don't think of as anti-Mormon unless they pick up the stick and dedicate themselves to tearing down the religion. To me anti-Mormonism is active; it is not just a mindset. We can all have ideas about certain things. For example, I have a preconceived notion of an Evangelical. When it comes out of someone's mouth, I pretty much think I know where they are coming from and their assumed lack of any real understanding of scripture. It is a weakness of mine, but it is acknowledged and I attempt to keep in in check. Anti-Mormons seem to alomst give up their beliefs and are committed to tearing down, attacking, and destroying the LDS faith. There is no logic or reason to their position; it is something they believe blindly and it is based in strong emotion.
I suppose that behavior derived from different motivation may still be considered bad; however, I generally like to think that motivation has some bearing on the qualifying behavior and truly bad or simply misguided. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think the term anti-mormon is a little pejorative, just like anti-semite is. I think the term anti-mormonism is much better, but if would be nice if there was an even better term. When people are anti-war (an idea), they are not necessarily anti-soldier (a person). One term states they don't like policies or don't agree with beliefs, and the other is more of not liking people. It is difficult, because earlier someone stated that anyone who actively opposed the church's teachings is an anti-mormon. Does this make a diligent scholar fascinated with religion in America who has come to different conclusions anti-mormon? I think your net is a little to broad. There are people who irrationally report history and are truly anti-mormons, but some scholars would be caught in the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.128.235.234 (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV Issue

[edit]

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

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


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

Image:Manti-1999.jpg=POV violation

[edit]

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

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

Looking at other similar articles

[edit]

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

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

Governement section

[edit]

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

===Government influence===
Alexander Burns, an undergraduate at Harvard College, posits that the overtly anti-Mormon approach of the government of Colonel Patrick Edward Connor, who arrived in Utah in 1862 to protect the overland mail routes during the Civil War, had a positive influence on the development of Utah. As a "powerful counterweight to Brigham Young and his church," Connor "[broke] down the territory’s fierce isolation from modern American society ... discovered precious metals and thus brought the mining industry to Utah ... helped lay railroads through the territory ... [and] connected it more closely with the rest of the United States."[gov sect 1] The minority Liberal Party, founded partly in response to Brigham Young's opposition to industrial mining in Utah, soon became the main voice of opposition to Mormonism in the territory.
Some have credited past government pressure towards Mormonism as being responsible for the overturning of doctrines that were politically out of sync (e.g., polygamy[gov sect 2] and priesthood racial discrimination[gov sect 3]).
=== References [gov sect]===
  1. ^ Burns, Alexander (January 4, 2006). "Coming to Terms With Utah" (SHTML). AmericanHeritage.com. Retrieved 2006-06-07.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
  2. ^ McKeever, Bill. "The Polygamy Dilemma" (HTML). mrm.org. Retrieved 2006-06-09.
  3. ^ Bush, Lester E. Jr. and Mauss, Armand L., Ed. "Neither Black Nor White: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church" (HTM). signaturebookslibrary.org. Retrieved 2006-06-09.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

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

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

Sources and Guidelines

[edit]

I was reviewing the article today, checking the references, and comparing them to Wikipedia policies. First let's review what policies state:

  • "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"
  • "exceptional claims require high-quality reliable sources"
  • "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."
  • "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."
  • "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"

Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds the information and any information that does not meet the standards for verifiable, reliable sources may be removed or even should be removed if the information may damage living people or organizations.

As I reviewed the references to to support some strong positions I felt the following references violated the above policies: 11 - 18, 24, 35, 42, 43, 52-55, 59, 60, 68-72, and 75. Reference 41 is broken and does not work. I would like to hear the input of other editors about these references and how they meet the policies of Wikipedia. The objective is the have references that are supported by third party, peer reviewed sources; none of these come close to that standard. They are most self-published, personal opinion, or have no peer-reviewed process or academic process associated with their activities.

Also, there are several citations for Introvigne, some with page numbers, but I did not see the name of the actual book they were quoting from. These specific references should be corrected so that readers can follow-up with more in-depth reading of the sources cited. Thoughts? --Storm Rider (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The full Introvigne reference may be found in the "References" section. --CaliforniaKid (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Reply by Slu2Com

[edit]

There is a question of censorship that leads me to believe that there are references and sources that are being removed. Particularly a link that I have placed 8 times and I have not received any reason as to why it continually gets removed.

YouTube video citing the meaning and the history of Anti-Mormonismhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j8K2uc95BM

Have I ignored a guideline, missed a step. Why does this video continuously get removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slu2com (talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that YouTube falls into the blog, forum, etc. category. There is no way to determine the true source of the entry, and no way to prevent the entry from being changed into something totally different. As a result, the clip can't be verified. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 02:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, youtube vidoes can not be changed once submitted, and there are plenty of verifiable sources in that video. --

slu2com (Talk) 11:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The video is produced, or at least links back to behindthezioncurtain.com which is not a reliable source. Bytebear (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction and deletion of second paragraph

[edit]

Trusttruth, we had an edit conflict when you deleted the second paragraph to the introduction. My final edit would have resulted in the following paragraph:

For those who are accused of anti-Mormonism the term is controversial because its use is overly broad by some Mormons and may include simple criticism of Mormonism, much of which may be disagreement over interpretation of scripture and doctrinal disagreement. Bill McKeever, an Evangelical antagonist of Mormonism, has has expressed his opinion that use of "anti-Mormon" is similar to "the Mormon N-Word" because he thinks the term readily evokes negative stereotypes along with feelings of fear, defensiveness, disdain, or disregard by Mormons.[1]

There is a misuse of the term Anti-Mormonism. It is covered in the article and belongs in the introduction. There is a vast difference between anti-Mormonism and criticism of Mormonism....although you cannot tell it by the current article Criticism of Mormonism, which is a screed of everything anti-Mormon and is anything but an article on criticism. I think the paragraph should be brought back, thoughts?--StormRider 23:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.mrm.org/topics/miscellaneous/anti-mormon-the-mormon-n-word

anti-Prop 8 Vandalism and scare tactics

[edit]

Should some of this be mentioned? (Yes I know the Mormons deserved it, blah blah. That out of the way..,) Apparently a Book of Mormon was burned in one case and people threatened.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? More vandalism and scare tactics occurred than you think. Someone tried to set fire to my church across the street from my university. The Anti-Prop 8 folks definitely deserve some attention in this article. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there reliable sources for this information? tedder (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

There have been problems and disputes at Violence against Mormons, and the current consensus seems to be to merge that article into this one. You can view the discussion at Talk:Violence against Mormons#Merger proposal. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

If there are no objections, I will be making this merge shortly. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  07:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early Anti-Mormon Silent Films

[edit]

I found this article interesting, and I think a section on the early silent films would be interesting. Images from Early Anti-Mormon Silent Films 68.5.43.21 (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Portrayals of Mormons in popular media is the best article for that material. Also, as a FYI, we already have a full article on the film A Victim of the Mormons. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute about the lead

[edit]

I think that this edit is a mistake. Unless there is a source that says that only Mormons use the term "Anti-Mormonism," or that "LDSaints often use the term in a broader sense than non-Mormons would use it" as it says in the edit summary, we shouldn't be making such a pronouncement, because it makes it appear that Anti-Mormonism is some sort of tactic or hoax perpetrated by Mormons. Delia Peabody (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  07:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under the heading of "Violence" incorrect statements

[edit]

"In 1857 President Buchanan concluded that the Mormons in the territory were rebelling against the United States. In response, President Buchanan sent one-third of the USA's standing army to Utah in 1857 in what is known as the Utah War. In 2007, the movie September Dawn portrayed Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders ordering the massacre of non-Mormon travelers passing through Utah, fearing they were the first in a wave of settlers to the territory. Though the LDS Church issued no comment on the film, Latter-day Saint members and several historical scholars protested these depictions, arguing that the film makers took "great leaps of historical revisionism."(citation needed) Approximately 120 immigrants from Arkansas were murdered at Mountain Meadows in Southwestern Utah on 11 September 1857, after having surrendered to a body of Nauvoo Legion militiamen."

  1. The Utah War is not real; there are no references to it other than those written by Mormon authors. Author and prominent LDS member Mr. Richard Turley, managing director of LDS Church History department has created a new version of events at Mountain Meadow by making up the Utah War story to explain the Massacre at Mountain Meadow.
  2. "Fearing they were first in a wave of settlers to the territory" ... is incorrect. Emmigrants had been passing through Mountain Meadow for at least 10 years prior to the massacre. They were NOT settling in Utah. No one, other than Mormons, "settled" in Utah. This wagon train was on their way to southern CA to settle. This was both Captains John Baker and Alexander Fanchers 3rd trip. Author Will Bagley in his book, "Blood of the Prophets," states the this wagon train was one of many murdered and robbed by Mormons. See Gunnison, Aiken, Honea, and John T. Baker wagon trains. Shannon Novak concurs in her book, "House of Mourning."
  3. " . . .after having surrendered to a body of Nauvoo Legion militiamen." Again, this is propaganda published only by Mormons. These were civilians that the wagon train surrendered to. It is not possible to find any references to Utah War and Mormon Militiamen written by any non-Mormon scholar, author, historian or archeologist.
  4. Please note Buchanan sent the troops to Utah in the summer of 1857. The Baker-Fancher left AR in April. They were murdered in September AFTER the army was sent, and before anyone knew they were coming. But the most important fact is that Buchanan did not send troops to quell the Mormons - it was nothing more than an escort group . . . escorting the new governor to Utah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldean50 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I completely understand. . . Are you saying that the "Utah Mormon War" never happened? What specific changes would you make to the paragraph? Also, the paragraph you quoted is under the "History" section, not the "Violence" section. I do agree the paragraph needs revising, and I also don't think the film "reference" should stay. It's definitely not a reliable source. -- Adjwilley (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Age misidentification

[edit]

Ed Decker is clearly and specifically not of the New Age movement. In The God Makers II, he actually goes so far as to call them occultists in league with Mormonism. However, this otherwise well written paragraph is information that is relative to the subject and should remain in the article. I would remove or rename the entire New Age section if I knew anything about the other person mentioned -which it's worth mentioning in what is written there, also has nothing to do with the New Age. 76.115.46.74 (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term New Age in this case is not the same as the New Age movement. Instead it is a label given by scholars of this topic (see description given in Anti-Mormonism#Forms). Given it is a term used in academic taxonomy for this subject, it is appropriate to use. There may be ways to be more clear in disambiguating the term, I just don't see any right now. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for page name

[edit]

Should there be a redirect for "Persecution of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or something similar, since "Mormon" is a nickname? -- ZeniffMartineau (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a redirect for anything you want, it's just like creating an article. Maybe you're talking about renaming the page? Probably no, per WP:COMMONNAME.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip~ I made a redirect ZeniffMartineau (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anti-Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anti-Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Anti-Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anti-Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Tag

[edit]

The word "Anti-Mormonism" can be pejorative. I added the tag because in the particular section, it is used pejoratively. There is a difference between a "critic", "non-believer", and an "anti-mormon". The section in question does not recognize that subtlety. Epachamo (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Faith Argument by James White

[edit]

The Reaction section has this quote by James White: "If you will identify yourself as an anti-Baptist, I'll let you call me an anti-Mormon." This is problematic for a few reasons:

  1. As far as I could see in the source, there's no attempt by the LDS Apologist to demean White's faith (what one would call "anti-Baptist"). White conveniently leaves out this discrepancy. Due to his intellectual dishonesty, the reference "a lack of reciprocal terminology" isn't valid.
    1. If an Atheist was publishing conspiracy theories about Islam, an appeal to "reciprocal terminology" is absolutely meaningless. A Muslim who calls the critic "anti-Islam" or "Islamophobic" doesn't in turn have to self-identify as an "anti-Atheist."
  2. Unless the source conveys White countering the "anti-Mormon" label with objective facts or a valid comparison, this paragraph should be removed. Defensive and reactionary opinions are not appropriate for Wikipedia.

69.162.253.105 (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-Latter Day Saint sentiment in the United States" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Anti-Latter Day Saint sentiment in the United States and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 28 § Anti-Latter Day Saint sentiment in the United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 19:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Mormon (musical)

[edit]

Would it be a useful addition to add a brief discussion of The Book of Mormon (musical) as an example of anti-Mormonism? Pete unseth (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it criticized the out-of-touch parts of the religion, it doesn't mean it counts as anti Mormon as it also kinda gives some merit to the group, meaning that it doesn't fully counts as a piece of anti-Mormonism Yippt (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article lumps a negative criticism in with hate crimes

[edit]

Any religion is subject to criticism. Christianity receives plenty, and it is not a hate crime. To note, even in a critical way, where Mormon teachings differ from that of historical Christianity is not “anti-Mormon.” 23.28.123.44 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree---there are serious WP:NPOV issues with the article. Xnyarla (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Mormonism&oldid=1248084092"