Jump to content

Talk:Criticism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Cleaning up sources

I think one thing that will help these criticism articles be a little more stable and legitimate is to replace the dubious or controversial sources with more established sources. I am not talking about WP policy - I am saying hold this article to a higher standard. For example, rather than source Jerald and Sondra Tanner, cite Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Instead of citing Jeff Lindsay or FAIR for apologetics, cite FARMS. There has to be enough out there that this kind of cleanup could be done. It would make the content more legitimate in the eyes of the critics and sympathizers, and make the content less likely to get deleted or modified. Just a thought. --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Prop 8

Does anyone want to collaborate on a Prop 8-related section? I really think that it's sad that Prop 8 isn't smeared all over this article. Thoughts? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly an important topic. This article already has a section on homosexual issues. My recollection is that about a year ago, a paragr was put in regarding prop 8 before the vote. (I think there was also text about LDS giving $$ to defeat pro-gay referendums in Alask etc .. is that still there?). But that paragraph has since been removed.
I see that this article does contain one sentence:
The church's recent support of California's Proposition 8 sparked heated debate and protesting by gay-rights organizations.[126][127]
Maybe the Homosexuality and LDS church (spelling) would be a better article? That way lots of detail could go in. This article is more of an overview / birds-eye-view. I cant offer to help write new text, but I would suggest that you broaden it to include several other past pro-gay-rights referendums in other states that the LDS fought against, including Calif. --Noleander (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Well thank you for your response. You're absolutely right, including LDS campaign funding to de-equality states all across the union would be much more accurate. I would have to do more research on the rest because my only solid understanding is that of Prop 8.
I also agree that mentioning Prop 8 in depth would be best suited on the "Homosexuality and LDS" page, but I also think that it is a criticism of the church in general. Maybe I can write a paragraph here, and link above that paragraph to the "Homosexuality and LDS" page. Thanks for your input. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I looked again at the Homosx. section in _this_ article, and that Alaska/Prop 8 paragraph was still here, but somehow it got moved into the wrong section. I moved it back under the Homosx. section. Feel free to edit it and improve it. --Noleander (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The criticism is that the LDS Church promotes only heterosexual relationships (along with the majority of Christian churches in the world). In doing so they also condemn all sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage. This position is condemned by (name all of the gay pride, political action committees, etc.). If you don't include this type of language, then you are writing a POV piece and it will cause a reaction by other editors. Prop 8 support was the result of an entire state's vote and was not limited to Mormons, Catholics, and the like. Scapegoats are fun because the focus anger, but they are seldom reality. The result of that state's vote belongs to the state. More importantly, the Prop. was found legal by a court of law. Do not create rights unless they actually exist. Thus, keep the Gay Pride flag waving to a minimum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
StormRider: I was not planning on making any edits in this area. I did move a paragraph that is a couple of years old, and put it in the correct section. Was your comment directed at me? --Noleander (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow, Storm Rider's comments were completely unnecessary, inconsiderate, and insensitve. They were thinly veiled by some kind of academic or moral prudence. He apparently is unaware of the circumstances seeing as how he's wanting us to veer away from writing about the criticism of the church at all, despite their acknowledged involvement. Disregarding.... GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Noleander, I was not directing my comment at you. However, Gnarly is missing my point completely. I support concise language and I discourage anything I sense will turn into an editing diarrhea episode by both sides. I do not encourage veering away from anything and that completely twists my position. Please read what I wrote and not go off on a tangent about what you want to think or say. The criticism should be focused on the LDS Church's position on sexuality and marriage and its impact. This concise description does not use any sensationalizing propaganda, it does not moralize from either side, it is direct, neutral, and clean. Criticism is not a list of quotes, but as we see on other criticism pages, a topical approach more easily allows for a neutral approach. Of course, doing so the writing style is more academic and not nearly as much fun to write. StormRider 22:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider, the same argument of "keep the Gay Pride flag waving to a minimum" could be turned the other way as far as POV is concerned: "keep the (CTR?) flag waving to a minimum". In any case, there are tons of verifiable and reliable sources linking Prop8 and the LDS church, and that should be reported on. tedder (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, please tell me how I was waving the "CTR flag". StormRider 22:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I remember the first time I ever looked at Wikipedia, a couple of years ago. I was reading "Mormon America" at the time (it was a Librarian's Choice book). So I glanced at the article on "Blacks and Mormonism". It was astonishing: About the only thing in the article was (1) Gladys Knight; (2) a smiling black (yes, they had a drawing) from 1840; and (3) Discussion of the "First black in the church's General assembly" (which was hilarious because it turned out that he was the only black member of that group of several hundred!).
Thinking it was just because no one had gotten around to adding more info, I typed-in some stuff from the "Mormon America" book (the book evolved from a cover story in Time magazine, so it is a very reputable source).
Within 24 hours, my new text had been deleted or heavily edited. I was personally attacked on the Talk page. I didnt understand, since I was new to Wikipedia. Then I looked at the home page of the attackers, and it appeared that most (all?) were members of the LDS church, based on their "I am a member of the LDS church" posters.
It took a year of very, very painstaking editing to get some basic, verifiable, true, useful information in that article. And it still gets regularly trashed by chruch apologists. I feel for African-Americans: if this is how they get treated in Wikipedia, what is it like in real life?
Welcome to the LDS pages of Wikipedia! --Noleander (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
A-freakin-men! While Stormrider's tone doesn't represent the tones of ALL Mormons on here, I can at least know that it's not uncharacteristic. Dissenters need to come together to resolve to expose this, to resolve to plow past this. We know the truths, we have the proof, we just can't stop until it's posted.
You know what's funny? It's those who censor who preach to me about impartiality, or what is it? Oh yes, "Assume good faith." It's impossible here. They can run around hating gay people all day long, but at the end of the day they're not allowed to deny what happened, they can't deny their involvement. The LDS church made their bed, now they'll lie in it.
I have minimal interest in being on a quest from God to expose their involvement, devoting my whole life to this. All I want is for the information to be there, I want the readers to know exactly what happened. They got what they wanted in our California, there is no need for them to pour salt in the wound. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Noleander's experience with that article is very unfortunate, but I think it's a sweeping overgeneralization to assume this is typical of all LDS-related articles. All LDS editors are not like that, and there is no reason to assume that this is the course all LDS articles will take. I've been an editor since 2003, and while there is certainly a tendency for some LDS editors (most often newbies) to try to assert the official "faith promoting" LDS information they learned in church, there is no reason to assume that this will happen in all LDS articles, and I can tell you that the vast majority of LDS articles are not "owned" by such editors. StormRider, for one, is not one of those editors. I base that on his actual track record, which I have observed for many years. StormRider and I don't always agree on everything, but he's not going to whitewash an article like that. I, too, am LDS, but you wouldn't know it by the way I edit, and I have probably reverted more "faith promoting" edits by LDS editors than anyone.
As to treatment of Prop 8 in this article, I agree with the above that the Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article would be the place to discuss in more detail the church's official basis for promoting gender/orientation-based limitations on civil marriage, and any contrary Mormon or non-Mormon views. For this article, I think it ought to focus solely upon the criticism of the LDS Church (including who specifically did the criticizing, what form the criticism took, what affect the criticism may have had, etc.), and the church's response to that criticism. For space and topical reasons, this article would not get into any discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of Proposition 8 or the merits (or lack thereof) of the LDS Church's actions. The focus ought to be on the criticism itself, not the object of that criticism. COGDEN 19:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I must say COGDEN has been a very outstanding editor: always level-headed, very knowledgable, never any sign of bias. My hat is off to him/her, and I hope I did not offend in any way. I concur with COGDEN's suggestions about additional homosexuality edits. --Noleander (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I know, coolest Mormon ever. I will agree that the focus should be the criticism, itself. I would, however, add the fallout of Proposition 8, how it affected the LGBT community, and what the LGBT community did in reaction. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Gnarly: dont forget there is an article California Proposition 8 (2008) and so you may want to have the two articles refering to each other, so not too much is duplicated. In other words, some of your text could go in the Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and some in California Proposition 8 (2008), and they could just link to each other. Just a suggestion. Without seeing the specific text, it is hard to make a concrete recommendation. --Noleander (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Inference that criticism is from a narrow base

Much of this article is written in the form that a few people are the basis for the criticisms listed. This infers that criticisms are based from a 'point of view' rather than based on facts. e.g. "Financial secrecy: The Ostlings and the Tanners fault the church ..." This clearly suggests it is a point of view that the church is secretive about it's financial dealings, where as it is a matter of fact that LDS do not publish these details and hence ARE secretive about this part of their organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.38.228 (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is written TERRIBLY, and it attempts to portray the criticisms as all POV and no fact Purplebackpack89 21:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
To an extent, criticism is POV. For example: The fact is the church is secretive about its financials. But, in the US at least, it has the right to be secretive. The criticism is that it is overly secretive, which is subjective. I agree with the rewrite for this case, but be careful that you don't inject subjectivity as fact. For example, I recently changed "[people] criticize the church for being overly greedy and materialistic" to "[people] accuse the church of being overly greedy and materialistic", since the phrase "overly greedy and materialistic" is subjective in nature rather than factual.
The crux of criticism is always a particular POV (essentially, "doing ___ is bad/hypocritical"); strong criticism is of course based on facts, but the facts are not in and of themselves "criticism". ...comments? ~BFizz 14:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
IP: The article was originally written without naming the critics (Tanners, etc) in the opening sentences of each section. However, that led to a large debate about whether that created a biased article because it implied there were a large number of critics. As a compromise, the solution was to insert the name of 1 or 2 critics that made the assertion. As a result, the article reads terribly, and not very encyclopedic. It has been a few years now, and if someone wants to propose a style change to make it more readable, feel free to make a proposal (but do so on the Talk page before doing in the article). --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Subheadings

Is it just me, or do the subheadings seem as if they could be better-worded?--ForgottenHistory (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The external links are an important part of the article: they identify significant critics of the church. As an alternative, the section could be converted to a section of the article body, as a list of critical organizations. This article is about criticisms and critics ... the links are a key aspect of the subject of the article. --Noleander (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of the external links are permissible under WP:EL. We do not link to individual organizations in articles of broader topics, per WP:ELNO point 13 which reads sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked. Each of these links would be appropriate in an article about that particular organization but not in this article, which is about the more broad topic of LDS criticism.
We are not a linkfarm; we do not link to homepages of sites when they do not provide encyclopedic information that cannot be incorporated into the article. Also, these links are all POV. I know that this is related to the topic of the article, but we should cover criticism articles without having blatalntly critical external links. See WP:ELPOV. I hope you see why these links are not appropriate and why you should revert your recent reinsertion of them. ThemFromSpace 00:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
How many of the sources on this topic, listed in the References section, have you read? --Noleander (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the appropriateness of the references, just the external links. Why do you ask about the references? ThemFromSpace 00:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Im wondering how you made the judgement that these links are not highly relevant to the article's topic. --Noleander (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The topic of this article deals with criticism of the church, but that does not mean that we get to link to sites which criticize the church just for the hell of it. Relevant links explore the topic and provide encyclopedic material that cannot be incorporated into the article. These links are only to homepages of organizations that either support or oppose the LDS. They do not add to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject other than to give the general idea that there is a controversy surrounding the church, but we don't need external links to show that! Creating diametric lists of these sort of external links is not what an encyclopedia does. ThemFromSpace 00:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Highly reputable or noteworthy critical sites can be linked, but in general, Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Sites like http://affirmation.org , http://concernedchristians.org , and http://nauvoochristian.org are not directly relevant to criticism of the Church. Just because a website's purpose is to proselytize Mormons does not qualify it to be listed here. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
This article is about criticism of the church. Of course a list of significant critics (and apologists) is appropriate and encyclopedic. --Noleander (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

These websites do not directly criticize the church. They have a larger scope than criticism of the church. Did I not make that clear in my last comment? See WP:ELNO #1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." That describes almost all of the websites listed here: they are not authoritative and therefore we should not enumerate them so exhaustively. ELNO also states that "Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence". ...comments? ~BFizz 02:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the brush that is used to keep the anti-mormon sites out is also being used to keep the pro-mormon sites (including lds.org) out. It could be argued either way, but it's an all-or-nothing; FAIR and lds.org are as invalid as the Tanner's Lighthouse site. However, ELNO also serves as a reminder- the sites that are truly critical (for or against) could be mentioned here and don't have to meet every standard of WP:WEB; there's no reason each site have a bluelinked article to be mentioned. tedder (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The reason I at first kept lds.org was that I saw it as the closest thing possible to an "official" site for this article. But now that I think about it there is no offical site for this article's topic so my original rationale does not apply. ThemFromSpace 05:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree. A good comparison (yes, WP:ATA) is Criticism of Apple Inc., which has no ELs either. tedder (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but these external links are highly relevant to the article, especially UTML and FARMS. I've restored them, but deleted some of the more minor sites. The WP:External links guideline (which is only a guideline) provides the exception: "[Links that should be avoided:] Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." All other similar articles in WP contain a modest amount of similar links (see, e.g. Criticism of Christianity or Criticism of Islam). The LDS church cannot be singled out for special treatment. --Noleander (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that each of those articles prune down their ELs just like I do for this article. I oppose the inclusion of the following, for the following reasons:
Scope wider than criticism of LDS church
  • Affirmation
  • Contender Ministries
  • IRR / Mormons In Transition
  • Mormon Research Ministry
  • lds.org and mormon.org
Not notable/reputable
  • Salamander Society
  • Mormon Curtain
  • ExMormon.org
That's my editorial opinion, anyways. The only ones I haven't opposed here, from among those that Noleander recently proposed, are CARM, UTLM, FARMS, and FAIR. I'm not necessarily supporting the inclusion of these, though. The "Critics" section is a much more "encyclopedic" way of bringing up these websites and organizations. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I hear you, but the fact is that WP does use the External Links sections extensively. Most non-trivial articles have from 4 to 20 relevant links that are selected based on whether they are relevant to the article, and whether readers may benefit (education-wise) from reading those links. WP is not censored. This article here is about criticism of the church, so the links are highly relevant. These links would be inappropriate for the article The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But in this article, which is about criticism and apologetic responses, the links are highly relevant and useful. I do agree that insignificant web sites that are never/rarely mentioned in discussions about this topic should be excluded. For instance, in your list above, the sites lds.org and mormon.org are highly relevant to this article. As for "Scope wider than criticism" ... that is not sensible: the better criteria is whether the site is relevant to the topic of this article or not. --Noleander (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm really not sure where "censorship" entered in, nor do I understand why multiple links to an official org (lds.org, mormon.org) would be necessary. However, WP:EL is pretty clear, and Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. DMOZ is good for that. tedder (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Some sins not atonable

A few issues with this section.

  1. Where's the criticism? Only a summary of the doctrine is presented.
  2. Young did not invent the concept of unpardonable sin. The wording needs to be clarified.

...comments? ~BFizz 02:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That is the common criticism about the doctrine of Blood Atonement. To paraphrase: "LDS church cannot be a true Christian church because its leaders/texts say that some sins are not atonable through J.C. (whereas in a true Christian faith, all sins are atoneable). Furthermore, the Blood Atonement doctrine (where the only way to atone was to be killed) was fabricated as a justification to kill enemies of the church with impunity". Again, just a paraphrase from memory. Let me look up the sources .... It is in Abanes p 233-237; and in Shadow or Reality pp 398-404. I agree that that section should be re-worded and clarified. --Noleander (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Sourcing and explaning the criticism would be greatly appreciated. I've added a tag requesting expansion of that section. If nobody else does then (if I remember) I'll try taking a look myself at the sources you've mentioned. Feel free to remind me on my talk page if I ever neglect to do something I say I will eventually do. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sexism

A few issues here too from what I've glanced at.

  1. None of the same sources show up in Women and Mormonism, even though it is noted as the "Main article".
    1. Ostlings, C. Bushman, Tanners, all absent in main article
    2. It does cite M. Quinn, which this article doesn't
  2. I checked Bushman (2006) page 113 but didn't see support for the statements made.
    1. I also used the "search in this book" feature but only found 2 uses of the word "sexism", neither of which applied to the article text.

I'm sure there is legitimate criticism in this regard; we should seek to provide detailed information in Women and Mormonism and then summarize the critical parts here. (pun intended, but serious nonetheless) I was going to edit the stuff attributed to C. Bushman, but thought it best to bring it up on the talk page first. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Both the "Sexism" section in this article and the Women and Mormonism article are in their infancy. There are a large number of sources on both topics, but the material presently in WP is brief, skimpy, poorly sourced. In the years to come, with luck, some editor will do the research and increase the size & level of detail of both. To pick one example of many: several sources describe how early church leaders treated women as chattel, and viewed multiple wives as interchangeable commodities ... yet this article has no mention whatsoever of those sources. Regarding the term "Sexism", you are welcome to propose a new title for the section, perhaps "Discrimination against women"? or "Oppression of women"? However, it will be hard to beat "Sexism" for conciseness and breadth. --Noleander (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with the section title nor the general content of the section. I agree that it can and should be expanded. However, I do raise issue when we say "C Bushman says ___", and then reference a page of her book where she does not say that thing. That's the main concern I was raising; that and the out-of-sync state of this article and the Women + Mormonism article. I've edited the Bushman portion to more accurately reflect page 113 of the book. I added her statement that "most LDS women tend to be good-natured and pragmatic: they work on the things that they can change and forget the rest" - I think it important to note that most LDS women "forget", or remain silent, regarding the alleged sexism. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement

That debate was closed as "merge," but of course that's all editorial discretion from here on. I have redirected the article, the last version is here. Have fun! - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Move

A lot of this criticism applies to other segments of the LDS Movement. I think this article should be moved back to Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement.--Descartes1979 (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. If you click on the link, this is where you go. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Racism section

A Jan 21 change (dif) by 24.193.125.9 (talk · contribs) to the Racism section changed the following sentence:

However, the large majority of black Mormons say they are willing to look beyond the racist teachings and cleave to the church.

to instead say:

However, the large majority of the Church's estimated 5,000 to 10,000 black members say they are willing to look beyond the racist teachings and cleave to the church.

The citation given is a 2005 Chicago Tribune article, which says:

Scholars say the number of black Mormons, miniscule before 1978, is estimated at 5,000 to 10,000 today.

Unfortunately that passing mention is all that is given to substantiate that number. There are several problems with this statement: it doesn't credit the true source of that number, but instead appeals to an unknown expert; it doesn't give us any indication about how that demographic material was collected, or if there are any qualifications to that number (such as if that is a number for within the US only); this article is ~7 years old, so it is significantly dated, and there is high likelihood of any number from 2005 being different today, even though the way the statistic is mentioned in the article would make it seem to be a current number. Additionally there is little actual relevance for any number in context of this WP article. While it would be relevant in Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the cited numbers in that article are actually much higher; e.g.:

Adherents.com quoting Deseret News 1999-2000 Church Almanac. Deseret News: Salt Lake City, UT (1998); pg. 119. "A rough estimate would place the number of Church members with African roots at year-end 1997 at half a million, with about 100,000 each in Africa and the Caribbean, and another 300,000 in Brazil."

The Chicago Tribune number is dated, unverifiable, conflicts with more reliable sources, and in any case is out of place in context of the paragraph it was recently added to. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Though the newspaper might be unreliable, I don't have much faith in the LDS church's own numbers either Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
My church has 14 billion black people in it. I think we should be trusting external sources before we rely on equally dubious church numbers. Mythpage88 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
A Portrait of Mormons in the U.S., The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2009-07-24, Mormons make up 1.7% of the American adult population, a proportion that is comparable in size to the U.S. Jewish population ... Nearly nine-in-ten Mormons in the U.S. (86%) are white, compared with 71% of the general population. Just 3% of Mormons are African-American and 7% are Latino. ... The 26% of Mormons who are converts to the faith differ markedly from lifelong Mormons in several ways. ... Converts are more likely than lifelong members to come from minority racial and ethnic groups. One-in-ten converts to Mormonism are black, and nearly all black Mormons are converts.
That doesn't include those born into Mormonism, a large portion of Mormons. Mythpage88 (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I specifically included the percentage of converts (26%) in the quote above in order to properly qualify the numbers that followed. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need numbers here on this article at all? If we simple don't list any number on this article (which is also trivial/off-topic in context) and instead defer descriptions of numbers to Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where that discussion belongs, we don't have to play references against each other here. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


Fat&Happy's recent edit to the article is fine with me. Mythpage88 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Grmph. How is that significantly different from what I tried to do earlier? And if nothing else, WP:REDFLAG may apply as a reason to avoid using the specific number. If it was true we'd see it in at least a few other sources. tedder (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
No significant difference to what I tried to do originally either, though I do like the wikilink to black Mormons. Also as an aside, I suspect that the 5-10,000 number used in the Chicago Tribune is a calculation the author did themselves based on some generally available demographic data. Were it recreated today, it could go something like this: US census says there are about 213.8 million adults in the US in 2010 (US Census), 1.7% of which self identify as Mormon (Pew), which gives us about 3.6 million adult Mormons in the US; if 3% of that number are black (Pew), that would give us about 108000 adult black Mormons in the US. Unfortunately this doesn't account for rest of the world outside of the US, and the article doesn't qualify it's numbers to properly indicate exactly what it is measuring. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints → Criticism of Mormonism – This is about the general topic of the Mormon culture and religion, not simply this single institutional body. Cf. Category:Criticism of Mormonism. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reducing the number of subsections

The article seemed to be highly divided into subsections, often with a sentence or two in each section (See the Baptism for the Dead section for an example). I have merged some of these very short subsections with the larger sections. I also tweaked the names of some of the sections to better reflect the content of the section or to fix them if they sounded POV-ish. I got rid of the "Access to historical documents" section and moved its contents to the Church Monitors Publications section. I would favor deleting the contents entirely, since it is out of date (the church has published or is publishing the documents it is criticized for withholding as part of the Joseph Smith Paers project). ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Essay added by 68.109.174.233

An IP editor at this address added this text to the section God was once a man. I removed it because it's inadequately sourced, and it states a viewpoint in defense of Mormonism at disproportionate length and in Wikipedia's voice. But if sources can be found, it could serve as a starting point for future work on the article. Therefore, I'm copying it below. A. Parrot (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

However, Latter-day Saint teaching on this point is supported by none other than Athanasius of Alexandria, who summarised, "God was made man that we might be made God" (On the Incarnation of the Logos 54). Although the doctrine has been dismissed by later scholars as a mere "physical theory of redemption" focused on the Resurrection, deification is more than a synonym for immortality. Church Fathers argued that deification not only restores the image of God that was lost in the Fall, but also enables mankind to transcend human nature so as to possess the attributes of God. "I may become God as far as he became man," declared Gregory of Nazianzus in the late fourth century (Orations 29.19). Descriptions of deification included physical incorruptibility, immunity from suffering, perfect virtue, purity, fullness of knowledge and joy, eternal progression, communion with God, inheritance of divine glory, and joint rulership with Christ in the kingdom of God in heaven forever.



The roots of the Christian doctrine of deification are primarily biblical. Beginning with the creation of humanity in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27), the church fathers developed aspects of deification from such concepts as the command to moral perfection and holiness (e.g., Lev. 19:1-2; Matt. 5:48; 1 Jn. 3:2; 1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Pet. 1:3-7), adoption as heirs of God (Rom. 8:15-17; Gal. 4:4-7), unification with God in Christ (John 17:11-23), and partaking in Christ's sufferings in order to be elevated with him in glory (e.g., Rom. 8:16-18; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:16-18; Philip. 3:20-21; 2 Tim. 2:10-12). They also pointed to examples of humans described as "gods" in scripture (Ex. 4:16; 7:1; Ps. 82:6; John 10:34-36).

Jewish thought, particularly in response to developing Christology and its perceived threat to monotheism, was more reticent to speak of humans attaining divinity. Nevertheless, Jews shared some of the crucial biblical texts underlying deification. Talmudic Judaism tended to stress humanity's obligation to imitate God's holiness in consequence of being created in the divine image. Moses and other prophets were spoken of as sharing God's glory and becoming "secondary gods" in relation to other mortals. (Meeks, pp. 234-35)

Critical Responses

Although this article's obvious purpose is to list various criticisms of the LDS Church and its doctrine (such "Criticisms of" articles are never good ideas IMO, since they inevitably turn into POV-laden screeds against whatever the article is intended to criticize), many of the accusations and/or criticisms do not have the accompanying responses from the Church and its supporters that are required for the article to have a fair and balanced perspective. For example, some sections of the article present certain "criticisms" as though they represent actual LDS Church doctrine (such as blood atonement and the spiritual status of blacks in the pre-mortal existence), when in fact these criticisms are based on misunderstandings or misrepresentations of what the Church actually teaches. Including the accusations of people like the Tanners in and of itself is fine, but when they make claims about doctrine or history that are in direct contradiction to fact, or to what the Church actually teaches, those criticisms deserve a response, and those responses should be included in this article. They are there to some extent, but much more is needed to present an accurate picture of the LDS Church and it's critics. I have taken the liberty of adding a few responses myself. I hope that others will do likewise. --Antodav2007 (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Claims About Native Americans

The criticism section is lacking a discussion of the claims the LDS make about Native Americans being a lost tribe of Isreal--and Native American responses to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModBentm (talk • contribs) 00:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a WP:SODOIT-type situation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Mormonsandgays.org

I think it may be a good idea to include something about the Church's (relatively) new effort to reach out with love and tenderness (and change perhaps rutted belief systems) to the church's gay members. There are several new statements by the first presidency regarding gays and I think this effort to lesson homophobia within the church should be mentioned.

Thanks Superbuttons (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is generally just a summary of content found on other topic specific articles; in this particular case the article that covers this is Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and MormonsAndGays.org is covered there. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirected from Mormon cult? POV?

It seems to me that if I was some guy who wanted to learn more about the mormons and all I knew is some other guy said it was a cult, wouldn't being directed to this page give me an immediate negative position on the subject? How would my view on the church be influenced if I were directed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints page? My guess is a whole lot more positively than being directed to this page. I'm not saying that wiki shouldn't have criticisms of the church, but this direction from mormon cult seems one sided. I'm wondering if this is an oversight, or an attempt to provide a negative view on the church, or just simply maintaining the train of thought for the searcher (i.e. the term "cult" is already subjectively negative and so we will direct them to the negative side of the church). Anyways, I'd like it to be considered. If it's going to be NPOV, shouldn't the direction be to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Page so the searcher can say "Oh, it's not a cult, its a church. I'll be darned." The bigger picutre is is the Church a cult? Well according to wikianswers: "Cults are absent of the betterment of the individual person but rather than leader only. Cults try to subvert the human will with total and complete obedience to the leader of a group or sect"wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_sect_and_a_cult+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us If that's the case the mormon church is not a cult. It's all about the betterment of the individual and we do not subvert ourselves to the leader (the prophet). We consider him a man and we subvert ourselves to God. So, if I type in "mormon cult" in a search and I'm directed to the criticisms of the church which imply that the church is viewed as a cult all that does is affirm my query that the church is a cult. Is that NPOV then? Would it be less POV if it was directed to the objective Church pages where the viewer can then easily access the criticisms if they choose? I dunno. You guys are the Wikiexperts. **I'm not saying we should do away with the criticism page. I look forward to an answer, thanks for the consideration.Superbuttons (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix Superbuttons (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints/Archive_1&oldid=1136642766"