Talk:Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Untitled
I feel this page should be better organized or incorporated into pages elsewhere. It is just a list and typically expresses only the "anti" viewpoint without giving the pro-Mormon viewpoint. A little balance would be appropriate.

BoNoMoJo, I did not realize that the MMM was already in the list. The list is very long and I just missed it. My apologies. soulpatch


 * No problem. And the first link is in the middle of list...kind of easy to miss. I probably could've avoided the second addition of the duplicate if I'd summarized my change/deletion of it with more specificity. I assumed you'd see what I was doing.  Sorry. B

"Regarding" is kinda clumsy and anti-style -- someone should rename this. - &#25140;&#30505sv 01:15, Sep 5, 2003 (UTC)

ARRggghhh! Ed, why are you moving these pages with so little discussion beforehand? You are making a mess. The naming convention for these articles has already been long discussed in related articles and your changes do not reflect any regard to these discussions! —B 00:52, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

The propriety of pages with "Controversies" in the title
I don't think any article should have the word controversy in the title, unless the article is about the fact of controversy, like what causes the controversy, what effects the controversy has on the dialog, etc. (and in that case, it should be named "Controversy and X"). The problem lies in the word "controversy": "Controversies regarding X" could mean anything, and it encourages people to conduct edit wars. I don't think you would never see a "Controversies regarding X" page in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, because it is assumed that any good, factual article about any subject will mention the major controversies involved, and not collage them together in a Frankenstein article. Lets face it everything about the LDS Church (or any religion) is controversial, and could eventually be examined in depth on a "controversy" page; a "controversy" article is like black hole that sucks material from main, "non-controversial" articles. COGDEN 05:41, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * There is this exact issue in the the Jehovah's Witnesses articles. Should there be a giant list of "controversies" or should these be presented in the context of their subjects? I don't have a really good answer to this. But I suspect that this question could come up for an given subject and I would like some guidance on what to do here. j o s h  b  u d d y  22:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible change in this article's focus
I've been thinking about what to do with this article, because every aspect of the LDS Church is controversial, and if followed to its logical conclusion, this page might as well be redirected to List of articles about Mormonism. To make this article meaningful, I think it needs to do more than just point out the things that are controversial. Therefore, why don't we make this article about Mormon external controversy itself, with an appropriate name change, such as Anti-Mormonism. It would be a more historical article concerning external controversy only, and would cover things like the Missouri mobs, the Nauvoo Expositor, U.S. efforts to stamp out polygamy, the "Godmakers", the Tanners, public reactions by non-Mormons over the "Negro doctrine" and the ERA, etc. To keep the scope of the article reasonable, I think it should be restricted to matters that caused notorious public controversy, or that concern anti-Mormonism as a movement or practice. Instead of arguments like "X doctrine is controversial because the Bible says Y", there should be arguments like "X doctrine was controversial in the year 18xx, and as a result, Y and Z happened", and "X evangelical group was formed in 19xx to convert those who had been 'led astray' by Mormonism". COGDEN 19:37, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with articles with the word "controversy" in the title. For example, there's an article about global warming controversy. It exists because there are practical reasons to keep individual articles from becoming excessively long. Similarly, I think there are enough controversies related to Mormonism to justify a separate article on that topic.


 * I think also that it's an overstatement to say that "every aspect of the LDS Church is controversial." For example, there's no real controversy aboout the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. Everyone except the kidnappers would agree that it was a deplorable crime against an innocent child. I'm sure that Jerald and Sandra Tanner would agree with that statement. Likewise, there's no controversy about whether the Mormons settled in the Salt Lake Valley.


 * Finally, making this an article about "anti-Mormonism" would exclude the important area of controversies within Mormonism. Several of the examples you gave above were actually internal controversies. Sonia Johnson, for example, headed a group called "Mormons for ERA," and even if we stipulate that her excommunication placed her "outside" Mormonism (which is itself an iffy assertion), the issue remained controversial within the church as well as externally. Likewise, the "Negro doctrine" was the object of considerable controversy and anguish within the church as well as the object of criticism from outside. I don't think controversies can always be cleanly divided into "anti-Mormon" vs. "internal." --Sheldon Rampton 00:17, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Sheldon, there are some good points to the statements above, but I think most of the information on the current controversies page are from an Anti-Mormon perspective, or controversies within the LDS Church (no mention of Elizabeth Smart on the page). I do think that this page could be divided into various articles that would make more sense - Anti-Mormon, Anti-Mormonism beliefs, Mormon Skepticism, Conflicts within Mormonism, and Conflicts within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. How it reads now is like a List of articles about anti-Mormon viewpoints with little commentary. -Visorstuff 01:20, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't have anything against the word "controversy" in the title per se, as long as the article is about the "controversy" itself, and not simply a list of Mormon doctrines that are controversial. To be NPOV, controversy has to be put in its context; we have to know who found it controversial and why, and what happened as a result of the controversy. And it can include internal, as well as external controversies. (I guess Sheldon is correct that sometimes you can't draw the line between the two.) It could be an article that covers anti-Mormonism, Mormon dissidents, and mormon criticism. Maybe it could be called History of Mormon criticism and/or Mormon criticism. COGDEN 15:10, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, something does need to be done, and I like COGDEN's latest points. There is already a Mormonism as a Christian Religion page.  The name change might be as small as Mormon Controversy, as in The Mormon Controversy. Hawstom 20:50, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Well I have noticed that Wikipedia seems to have much more negative material about Mormons than any other religion within its contents. Whatever happens to this page, the result should also be applied to the other religion sections.  The "controversies" of Mormonism exceed that of Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Catholicism, and all other religions combined; well at least it appears to be so by Wikipedia description of it.  In my eyes, it seems that Wikipedia is attempting to expose Mormonism's problems while failing to reveal other religions' enigmas.  Why doesn't the Catholic or Jehovah's Witness or Islamic Wikipedia section have an in-depth examination of their "controversies" as well?  All religions have some, not just Mormons. Gaytan 15:30, 5 Nov 2004

There is something to what you are saying. Wikipedia is a work on progress. Maybe you can look into it further and develop it into a project in the coming months. Tom - Talk 05:28, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

From my talk page: Further explanation...
Thought this would be appropriate here as well

Why did you revert my edits on the Mormon controversies article? No explanation was provided and I'm not sure what your reasoning was by context. Deadsalmon 00:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My apologies of not explaining. First, you removed Orson Scott Card as a controversial Mormon. He is quite controversial within Mormonism. He is accused of making homophobic statements by non-Mormons, he is accused of being to "liberal" in his interpretations of Mormon teachings by many Mormons. A good example is his statements that the church doesn't discourage watching "R-rated movies" [8], the use of sex and strong language in his fictional works and so forth. I'm not judging the merit of his statements or his work, but his is considered controversial both within and without of the Church. And I haven't even begun to address his historical research and academic-type publications. He is bright and very smart, but is as controversial (if not more so) than Sheri Dew, and others who are controversial - not anti, but controversial both within and without the church.


 * Second, you wrote, changed all references from "no longer identifies as Mormon" to "former Church member." In many cases, you may be correct, as their excommunication or whatever, was highly publicized for folks including Sonia Johnson, Ed Decker, but others including Steve Benson and the Tanners, we take their word for it that they asked for their names to be removed. Wikipedia needs proof to say "former church members" whereas it is easier to state that they no longer identify as Mormons. Plus, that is consistent across all controversial folks who have either left the church or no longer identify themselves as Mormons. Plus if they are no longer Mormons, how should they be categorized in a list titled, "List of prominent critics and controversial Mormons." They are former or don't identify?


 * Some of your punctuation and stylistic changes made at 01:51, 28 September 2005 probably could have stayed, however, I just hit the rollback/revert button which undoes the user edit to the next last edit prior to the user edits.
 * I really appreciate you asking for a clarification and for your Wiki-etiquette. I see they've been removed again, which is dissapointing and I'll discuss with MrWhipple. -Visorstuff 17:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't think Card or Dew belong in the list since neither of them have had public battles with the institutional Church, nor have they been subjects of Church discipline, nor have they left the Church (Dew, in fact, is the president of Deseret Book). And calling them "conservative" is not a useful description &mdash; Card is quite liberal politically. --MrWhipple 05:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I can agree with the categories of conservative - probably something better would work. That said, the title of thsi article is Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And these two are controversial. The section headng is "List of prominent critics and controversial Mormons" and that fits the bill for these two. perhaps it would be best if we seperate out the list into two parts: non mormons and mormons (or even faithful mormons?)

If things that don't have battles with the institutional church don't belong in the list, then we should also modify the "List of controversial subjects" and remove "Book of Mormon," "Book of Abraham," "Book of Moses," "Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible," "Temple (Mormonism)," "Pre-existence," and "Word of Wisdom" among others? The problem when we start seperating, we are only giving one point of view. I know a few people who have stuggled with their testimonies after either dealings or interactions or readings or interations with both of the two listed, and I'm not the one who added them to the article originally. So it is not isolated to my experience. Unfortunate, but this is what we work with. There are probably more people that should be added.


 * I second the idea of splitting the list into controversial critics of the church and controversial faithful members - it's not a perfect distinction, but Card and Dew are completely devoted the church, and lumping them with all the others on this list is jarring, or at least a "which one of these things is not like the others?" While we're at it, the list of controversial faithful members might include J. Golden Kimball, Hugh Nibley, B.H. Roberts, etc. - Reaverdrop ( talk /nl/ wp:space ) 00:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Article
Based on the Wikipedia NPOV policy (specifically, the policy on content forking), I suggest that this whole article be deleted. The policy is clear. --TrustTruth 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Exmormonism and anti-Mormonism and Criticism of Mormonism pages reference this material generally, and this list serves as a short-cut to avoid taking up too much space there. That's the only reason I bothered with it, because I need to link it to save space. I agree with NPOV fully, and this list seems to comply, EXCEPT the names part, which seems a bit like a blacklist or guilt by association. It is now completely neutral to a religious POV, and rightly balanced in the categories section, and makes no assumptions that aren't discussed in Mormon-edited pages on the topics. Mormons don't deny these controversies, they just explain them differently than some might.Anon166 05:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The appropriateness of references to Utah statistics
I don't think that the LDS can be properly equated with Utah in general, and thus statistics about antidepressent use, bankruptcy, and fraud are all out of place in a "Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." If they are placed under an appropriate heading, the antidepressant and bankruptcy statistics should be deleted (hearsay) unless proper citations can be produced.Nightclerk 20:15, 19 June 2006


 * Agreed, I was getting around to it anyway. Anon166 04:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Mormonism
I think this would help balance both pages and add to the neutrality of Wikipedia.

POV and listcruft
The premise of this whole "article" is weaselly - it basically says "people who aren't Mormons are skeptical of everything Mormonism is about" with no attribution of notability to any third-party sources whatsoever. This could all be one person's opinion, too, as there's very little non-IP editing in the article. MSJapan 06:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then please chime in at Articles for deletion/Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.--TrustTruth 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added some citation requests. This article has a large, swelling infection of npov elements (not to mention one-sided axe-grinding citations). It needs to be lanced, drained, and given heavy doses of an antibiotic. I believe it can be healed. I see the value of a collection point for Mormon criticisms. Let's get all the criticisms together and shine the light of day -- an npov light of day -- on them. Please. --TrustTruth 05:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)