Talk:Institute for Religious Research

Poorly written - needs some serious editing
I happen to be doing some basic reading about Mormonism at the moment, and followed a link from another Wiki page (Criticism of Mormon sacred texts), and there are some things on this page in regard to the IRR that just seriously doesn't seem clear to me at all.

For example, as I'm writing this, there is this: "additionally, the Deseret News pointed out IRR's criticism of the efforts of Richard Mouw of Fuller Seminary to repent for the actions of evangelicals."

I'm sorry - What? First of all, what in the world is this referring to? "to repent for the actions of evangelicals"? What actions? Needs more relevant explanation. And second, why, grammatically is it attached by semicolon to the part of the sentence before it: "The University of Utah's student newspaper observed the absence of opportunity for LDS to respond in the film;"? This just makes no sense.

And then right after that is this: "In an article for a journal published by Brigham Young University's Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, John Gee considered IRR's publication By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri by Charles M. Larson to be a 'deliberate deception.' Okay. But why did he call it a "deliberate deception." Obviously the article shouldn't be reproduced here, but how about a one or two sentence description of his basis for calling it a "deliberate deception." Now, to be honest - and I'm not saying this is what it is - but it appears like a biased editor came along and decided to write a "hit line" to attack that book, without even describing in any way what that whole "deliberate deception" thing even is. An article in the Brigham Young University's Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, too. Well, no duh, go figure, Mormons didn't like it because it puts Mormon religious doctrine in a bad light. Geeze.

Anyway, either this page needs more work, or it should be consolidated elsewhere. I'd do it myself - but, sorry, I don't have a clue, I'm reading about this stuff for the first time right now.


 * I agree with the need for clarification here, and also just came here wondering what IRR was after seeing a ref in the edit history for a page related to Mormonism. From a quick look at the WP page for Richard Mouw, it appears he considers that evangelicals as a group have been unfair in their treatment of Mormons. My guess is that mentioning IRR's disagreement to Mouw's position was intended to show/suggest that either IRR has an anti-Mormon bias, or Deseret News thinks it has.  If so the fact or allegation of IRR's bias should be stated and referenced.  I'm not familiar with the book, the documentary, or IRR itself, so won't attempt a clean-up. Pastychomper (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
I'm writing this page in hope of establishing notability for statements at Criticism of Mormonism. I've already written two surrounding articles on either side of the debate at Richard and Joan Ostling and Moses Rischin. I'm surprised at the speed which the speedy deletion notice was posted. I've already produced three third-party sources which note the organization. I'll try to do more to support the articles claims of notability, thanks for the warning. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that this one was a borderline article regarding the issuing of a CSD in the first place. The original desicion to CSD this was the slightly controversial subject, along with the issued sources. I made a mistake here by NOT checking every source listed; The one or two i opened striked me as being hobbyist pages which mentioned the organization. However, after a closer checkup on the other links, its pretty clear that this does NOT violate notability guidelines. In short: I made an error here. Sorry for causing the extra work caused by this, and good luck with the article! Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 15:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC) (And i promise to be more carefull with fast notices in the future )
 * LOL thanks, I may be seeing you around again with the list of barely-notables I'm working with. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dont expect that, i tend to learn from my mistakes. ;) Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)