Talk:Mormonism and violence/Archive 1

Mormonism and violence
The dispute on the neutrality of the page "Mormonism and violence". Please feel free to add to the discussion.

Are the claims factual according to reasonable and objective standards? Would they stand up to academic scrutiny? To focus on one aspect of a subject may not be motivated by neutrality, but if the material presented in Wikipedia is backed up by reasonable standards of fact then that should not be barrier to presentation. If pursuit of a subject is not motivated by neutrality and the material is mythic or otherwise unsubstantiated, that is certainly a barrier. Peterdadams (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the claims may be factual (always debateable), but this article is in no way reasonable. IE: The first statement that Mormons approve of murder in certain circumstances is absolutely false. The author has taken one piece of Mormon scripture--Never mind the accounts of deaths and "murder" that run through out the new and old testaments--and twisted it to read in a very negative and absolutely false light. This type of misleading word smithing is prevalent through out the document. The Mormons were--and still are--hated and overwhelmingly more times than not were the recipients of violence than the administers of violence. This article uses loose interpretation and false statements to paint an incorrect picture of Mormons and their current beliefs. Kielvon 21:11, 14 April 2008

Blood oaths
User:Storm Rider deleted the section on "blood oaths" in the temple saying the section was "redundant" and "the same" as something, but he didn't say what. There must be some confusion, because I don't see the deleted section discussed anywhere else in the article. But Storm Rider has a history of opposing the existence of Blood oath (Latter Day Saints) too at Talk:Blood oath (Latter Day Saints), so I'm not wholly convinced that he didn't know fully what he was doing in deleting the section. What's up with this kind of editing? If you want to edit material to make it better, then do so, but don't perform wholesale deletions of material for spurious reasons. This stuff is part of the history of Mormonism and just because current members may feel some discomfort or awkwardness in seeing it discussed does not mean the rest of us are doing it for "titilation", as has been suggested. Snocrates 08:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Focus
Is there a reason this article focuses almost entirely on violence by Mormons, or on Mormon philosophy that justifies violence? The section on violence against Mormons is very short, yet their history is one of being violently persecuted. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the subjects are separate even though they may be related. I have begun the Article Violence against Mormons. It can be expanded.

Article subject
OK...either this is an article about Mormon violence or violence against Mormons. The latter seems to be something only recently added. For Violence against Mormonism, I think a separate page should be started.--69.62.180.178 (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to treat the subject separately. Violence and LDS is the same topic weather LDS are the victims are the perpetrators. -- Storm  Rider  00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, and add that the two types of violence are historically very closely related. The instances of violence by, or taught by, Mormons, such as the Mountain Meadows massacre were largely reactions to earlier violence against Mormons. Things such as the oath of vengeance were a response to the violent murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. The doctrine that Mormons could take retribution after the third offense was a reaction to violent persecutions and massacres of Mormons in Missouri. It's incomplete to tell the story of Mormon violence without discussing violence against Mormons. CO GDEN  04:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the subjects are separate and this article should not be used to push Prop 8 propaganda. Consensus cannot change the article subject. All editors are welcome to contribute to the article and remove unsourced and unreferenced material, but the article is not about persecution of the religion. It is about the violence the church condoned. Just like an article about historic catholic violence. To say that there should be balance is akin to asking for balance on the article about the Spanish inquisition. It must be fair and honest but there is no need to balance the article with information about prop 8 in that article either. I began a sincere article on the subject of violence against Mormons and yes a small section referring to what spawned the Mormon violence would be appropriate here, IE persecution or misunderstanding. But, asking for balance on this article is POV. I didn't write it and I am sure it needs more work, which I intend to do, but, again, do not push a political agenda on this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article certainly needs to have much POV removed and rewording to be encyclopedic. It comes acrss as if Violence is unique only to Mormonism. I have started a great deal of work, including a new overview which was missing. Adding references to the christian bible which were clearly overlooked (possibly on purpose. Who knows) And making sure the article is NOT an attack on the church. --Amadscientist (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that this article be retitled "Violence in Mormonism," and that "Violence against Mormons" or "Persecution of Mormons" be created as a separate article. I stumbled upon a block of crimes against the LDS church in another article (Propostion 8), and I could not find a "Violence against Mormons" or "Persecution of Mormons" for it. Hence, I mistakenly put it here. --Dr.enh (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Crimes aginst the LDS church do not constitute persecution or violence. Persecution would need a great deal more official government sanctioned or organised long term harrasment. Anger by a small group over Prop 8, and the protests IS NOT PERSECUTION. Removal of official rights by a single or couple of groups is. Where is your concern over this? Why are you attempting to make Prop 8 backlash as persecution. It was only a few months worth of the history of this situation. YES, making note of subjects that are directly linked with violence ahould be mentioned and I know there was at least one assault in the Castro District of SF against a female prop 8 supporter, but I saw her interviewed and she was only pushed not beaten. I have been beaten for being gay, by a guy wearing rings on every finger. Blows to the head and blood everywhere. THAT IS VIOLENCE.


 * I understand that it is your opinion that these are two different types of violence. However, I happen to have a different opinion and think this article should address all types of violence, that by the LDS Church and that against the LDS Church. As far as article title goes, I think it should be changed, but I do not have a suggestion at present. Violence is defined as: 1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm, 2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence, 3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence, 4. a violent act or proceeding, 5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred, 6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text. I think the definition makes it clear that violence can easily encompass crimes against the LDS Church; persecution certainly can also be demonstrated by the actions of the LGBT groups during and after the Prop 8 compaign.
 * You have identified this as a topic of interest for LGBT wikiproject, but then want to remove all Prop 8 information. If we removed that topic from the article, how does the topic then apply to your wikigroup? I removed it because there was nothing in the article at that time that related to the LGBT issues; of course, it would not be the first time I was mistaken.
 * I apologize that you have suffered from violence for being a gay person, but I am not clear on who the abuser was. Are you saying that LDS as a Church do violence to gay individuals or something else? -- Storm  Rider  18:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of that illustration was simply to point out that violence against someone has to b more than a shove, to be considered "Violence". It has nothing to do with any LDS member. However, removal of a project tag just because of your own personal opinion is a violation of Wiki policy. Removal of a project tag because of misunderstanding is different, but still does not give you the right to decide who edits here as a project and who does not.

This was not a matter of my personal opinion. LDS IS an LBGT subject. SO are many Catholic subjects. As a member of the LBGT project group I worked heavily on this article and NOT TOWARDS A POLITICAL AGENDA. Wikipedia is not propaganda mill. Be encyclopedic and nuetral. Consensus cannot change the article subject. POV cannot change the article subject.

This article was begun as a reference to the violence from the church. Historically speaking, this is not controversial and the article is heavily cited and referenced. Being uncomfortable with the subject does not warrant altering the core subject of the article. That is not editing in good faith. Please understand that, while I am suspicious of why this article was begun, it is a legitimate article and much work has been done to keep it neutral and encyclopedic.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that Wikipdia does define Violence as "Violence is the expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt. Variant uses of the term refer to the destruction of non-living objects (see property damage)." So, yes, the glue in the key holes is considered as mild violence even to wikipedia. That certainly does mean that it can be mentioned in the article "Violence against Mormons", but is still innappropriate here. Be aware that copy and paste from one article to another is in violation of wikipedia CopyRight policy. Redundant sections can be removed. Unsourced, or badly cited information may be challenged, disputed and removed. See wiki dispute resolution.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are making a lot of assumptions about me and my objectives as an editor. Do I know you or better yet, do you know me? Have we ever worked together on an article? If so, my memory is failing me because I have no recollection. As the old saying goes, you don't know crap from shine-ola about me and it is best for you to stop making any assumptions.
 * I could not care less about a political agenda and I have not made any edits with any objective for that sort. However, you have made many edits since you started the article. In checking the history, you did not start this article and I am not sure you are the owner of it and are the sole source of what it should say and what it should not say. On wikipedia we work by consensus and I would happy to work with you in achieving it, but that does not mean you get to make all the decisions and everyone gets to watch.
 * Stange way to interact. How about keeping the assumptions to a minimum and asking questions first. -- Storm  Rider  19:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I stopped reading the post you just made when you began to become un-civil. I make no assumptions about you. Only about what can happen to an article when ANY editor edits against policy and standards. Understand this is not about you. It is not about me. It is about the article and editing in a nuetral manner in good faith.

You are the one that removed a project tag, telling an entire project that they are not allowed to edit an LDS article.

Everyone is welcome to edit on all wikipedia articles IN GOOD FAITH AND FOLLOWING WIKI STANDARDS. I do not own this article. I do not "protect" this article. I am making sure that the article stays within the boundries of policy and is not used to bash either the gay community or the LDS church.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me try to be clear. I believe my editing history shows that I have attempted balance and fairness with a neutral tone. I am not perfect and do make mistakes, however I have edited this article and all subjects of LDS and LBGT in good faith. These include. California Musical Theatre with regards to Scott Eckern. I started that article long ago. California Proposition 8 and many more. I am looking to make sure that anger on both sides does not leak into articles. I am a gay wikipedia member, who has worked closely along side LDS members for years and have immediate family in both the LDS church and the Catholic church. I have worked with Mr. Eckern and with the Gay Community Center in LA. I have interests in these subjects, but strive to keep my personal feelings separate from these articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I removed it because I did not see the relationship. I also asked you to clarify that relationship. I edit the Catholic Church article regularly, because of my interest should I mark it with the LDS wikiproject page? or the baptist wikiproject page? I guess that I am too much of a purist. It is my understanding that the subject matter must be related to the wikiproject as a whole and not simply appeal to the interest of one of its members. What is your understanding of when it is appropriate to add a wikiproject to an article?
 * I have never had an understanding that I could only edit articles that had my wikiproject added to it. Do you really think that if the LGBT wikiproject is not added to an article it means no LGBT individuals can edit them? If that is the case, then we should add every wikiproject to every article; but that seems like a rather narrow perception of the purpose of a Wikiproject. -- Storm  Rider  19:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not need to clarify to others why I added the project to this article. You do not have the right to remove it just because you don't approve. It is not about justifying why it is added but why you think you can remove projects that you don't approve of or believe relate to articles you edit on. This article could relate to many projects, Project Biography, Project History, Project archeology and more. LDS and LBGT communities are linked subjcts and I believe you actualy are aware of this.

You may add the LDS project to any article that relates. Yes, Catholsim and LDS are now connected and perhaps the project should be on the article.

So...how does this subject relate to Prop 8, and the backlash against the church. The violence associated with the LDS church was not spawned by anything having to do with that. Have there been instances where LDS members have struck out against others with violence in retaliation to the backlash? That would be a part of this subject and may be worth looking into--Amadscientist (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's start one more time. I am trying to understand your single edit only at this point. I will limit myself to a statement and a question in the hopes that we can begin a productive interaction. It would be very helpful if you could please respond to just the question.
 * When I removed the LGBT wikiproject there was nothing in the article about the LGBT Wikiproject and its stated scope (Quote: "This is the LGBT studies notice board for Wikipedians interested in articles related to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender topics.") and so I removed it. QUESTION: How do you see this article's topic related to the LGBT issues. -- Storm  Rider  20:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I appreciate the civil and forward question.


 * The subject of violence by and towards groups is an LGBT related subject.


 * The Mormon Church has several very controversial doctrines in regards to homosexuality and that makes the subject of The Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints a subject related to LGBT studies.


 * Recently the LDS Church, along with the Catholic Church funded a proposition to remove the constitutional rights of gay couples to wed. Known as Proposition 8, it changed the California constitution to limit the rights of certain citizens in the state of California by defining the term of "Marriage" to be between a man and a woman. After November 5Th, protests and backlash against supporters of Proposition 8, including the LDS church and the Catholic Church began to spread out, not only in California but throughout the nation and in some instances, outside mainland US. The similarities and parallels between this recent clash between churches and people is similar in regards to this article.


 * It is within the scope of LGBT studies, to verify and authenticate claims of the LDS Church and others, making claims against them, even among our own community and projects here on Wikipedia.

--Amadscientist (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Violence against Mormons
For referenced information about violence against Mormons please place the information here! The article was created on June 10th.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Alleged and Rumors removed
Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. "Alleged" and "Rumors" cannot be referenced with proper citations. It can only be verified as an actual rumor. These simply cannot be used in an encyclopedic manner and seems to me to be a deliberate attempt at a political or religious agenda against the LDS Church. All have been removed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Heading titles changed
Sorry......but they were not very encyclopedic. They came across as accusations and not facts.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

LBGT Project removed
Editors that remove project tags are committing vandalism to the talk page and article. The project is indeed appropriate here and others cannot simply say no to it. I am a participating member of the project. If you are suspicious that the project was placed there for malicious reasons I can assure you I did not intend for that, but yes, the LDS subjects are as much subjects for LBGT editors to work on as LBGT articles can be worked on by LDS members.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What's your rationale for tagging this project with WP:LGBT? --Moni3 (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See above. It isn't "Tagging". It is adding a project to an article that is within it's scope.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tagging is not a derogatory term here. You have tagged this page with a template. However, several other members of the LGBT project, including myself, do not see how this article fits within the scope of our project. Your rationale does not explain it. Any and every subject may be worked on by LGBT editors, but we do not tag every article in the encyclopedia of course. What specifically is the relationship that you see between this article and the LGBT project? (BTW, no one is calling the tagging malicious; we just don't think it is appropriate in this case.) Lady  of  Shalott  00:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a specific rule in regards to using this tag to identify an article within the scope of the project that I am not aware of? I have never been questioned in this manner about bringing a project into an article before. What specifically makes you disagree with my rational that this falls within the scope of the project? I have not been randomly placing "Tags" on pages. This was a legitimate tagging as I have fully explained in good faith. I really do believe that after a tag has been placed in good faith, it is more important for those in disagreement to explain why it is not.

We're not talking about information in an article, we are talking about placing an article within the scope of a project. How is this controversial? How is this in anyway inappropriate?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is, there is nothing in the article that relates it in any way to LGBT issues. That is why the project tag does not appear to be relevant. Do you intend to add something to the text of the article to relate it to LGBT issues? Lady  of  Shalott  02:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actualy yeah, I was talking about that up a ways in this discussion from something Storm Rider had said and it is worth looking into.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That really didn't take long. I found many things to add to this with proper refernces that more than spell out a direct link. I guess moving slowly is not something being required here so I will gather my information and references and put it into the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Scientist, it centers on scope of Wikiprojects. When an article is added to a Wikiproject it is because there is a focus of interest on the topic. For example, when you review each of the articles that are already in the LGBT Wikiproject you will see a common theme. This one is odd because it has nothing to do with LGBT issues. It falls outside of the scope of the project's interest.
 * I understand that this topic is of interest to you personally and that is a good thing because it benefits the article, but I suspect that you would be one of the few, if not only editor, who finds this topic of value to the LGBT Wikiproject membership.
 * Nothing that has been said by anyone is meant to disparage your interests, but I do think we are trying to respect the scope of the LGBT Wikiproject. Cheers and peace. -- Storm  Rider  03:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not attempting to say that anyone is disparaging me personally, yet there has yet to be a reasonable explanation as to why it does not fall within the scope as stated.

Because this makes editors uncomfortable is not reason to remove the project. There is no common theme sir, in the LGBT project. The last discussion on the project tag was for "Annal sex". Excuse me if I take that to mean you feel that all LGBT articles must be contained within your view. No offense to you but you can clearly see what road we are going down. If not let me ask you again and to any editor, to explain why Mormon violence, Violence against Mormons and then the article which was already tagged that I had to clean up along with this one from being heavily weighted with prop 8 material inappropriately, History of Marriage in California. These articles were linked from the Wikipedia Article California Proposition 8 (2008) clearly with an agenda towards that subject very inappropriately and simply un-encyclopedic.

This issue is not about labeling all LDS articles in this manner but these three do all contain similar subjects that are related. I do intend to add more information as I am sure some other editors may wish to do. Referenced properly these articles can cover the subjects in an encyclopedic manner and not be controversial just for the project participation by the member of another project on the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This conversation makes me feel like Br'er Rabbit and the tar baby; the more I try the worse it gets. I simply do not know what more I can say to explain what the scope of a Wikiproject is. If you can't read the bloody scope of the LGBT Wikiproject and understand it I give up. It is not in Russian, it is in plain English. I requested additional input from the project page, two additional members of the LGBT Wikiproject responded above, and they also did not understand your logic.
 * Then you go off the deep end and start talking about "annal sex"; I have never heard of such a word and I assume that you are referring to anal sex. My statement about a commonality of articles is taken from the LGBT Wikiproject page regarding articles newly tagged as LGBT; please look at it and you will readily see that the new articles all have something in common...they fit the scope of the project.
 * I do see that you have added some topics to the article that may make this fit the scope of LGBT. I have not attempted to review it yet.
 * Regardless, this is much too difficult to work with and I don't have the time nor the patience to beat myself over the head trying to communicate simple things. Have at it, knock yourself out. You have taken unilateral actions without any attempt at gaining consensus and I assume if there are any problems other editors will do likewise in the future. Have a good weekend; you have worn me out. Cheers. -- Storm  Rider  07:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good Lord. That was not "Off the deep end". The last discussion on the project discussion page for LGBT studies on the subject of placing the project tag on a page was for the article "Anal Sex". Spelled correctly or not. That was not meant for shock value, it was meant to disprove your notion that there is a common theme within all Project LGBT studies articles. You have given absolutely nothing to this discussion in regards to WHY you feel it is not within the scope of another project page. I am beginning to feel that you are having ownership issues in regard to project participation. You are rushing the developement of this article.


 * Yes, two others from the project have commented on this and I have endeavored to answer their concerns, both at the project page and within the articles.


 * I understand this may be an uncomfortable idea to think, for some reason, but this article really is within the scope of LGBT studies. There is huge amounts of material available in print from Universities as well as actual documents from the church itself. I feel I have proven, at the very least, that the article is within the scope of project LGBT studies.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mad, why do you think this is uncomfortable for anyone? You have brought this up several times; it makes me think that you personally must feel it uncomfortable. I have already stated that this same Wikiproject is listed on the LDS Church article page and I have no problems with it being there. How does discomfort apply here.
 * Lastly, as I indicated above, you have added information on LGBT issues to the article and therefore it can now logically, reasonably be within the scope presented on the LGBT Wikiproject. NOTHING should be this difficult, NOTHING and that it has been speaks volumes about some of the problems that exist. Think about it. -- Storm  Rider  22:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Violence related to LGBT people
Several paragraphs in this section are not about violence at all, but about the church's teaching on homosexuality. Anyone object if I remove them? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I object. There has to be a minimum amount of background about the teachings of the church to understand why there is violence. Be sparing with removal of information unless it is actualy false please.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also the section referring to "Proposition 8" talks entirely about spray-painting some walls. I don't believe that, in the big scheme of things, graffiti can be considered "violence". DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That was discussed above and it is considered violence. I will look at it again to see if it really needs to be there. If not I won't add it back, howvere I did return a statement about the mormon view on Homosexuality as the use of the term "sinful" is both inaccurate and not what the actual refrence from the LDS official church document used as the reference. I should look at the overall reason for it being there and also determine if it has value in the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ARticle has no real need for a mention of sparey paint. I see no reall reason it should have been there. Ther is a bit of a POV problem that may have been here even before major changes. I noticed the term "Apologists" and don't see hw that is encyclopedia nor exactly how it is being used here can be justyfied. Also a good eal was added to the section on the pamplet that is POV. Why the church used the shock therapy outside of the professional care of doctors is "Apologetic" (Tongue in cheek) if you see what I mean. So I feel that section should be removed and copy edited to reflect a more encyclopedic tone.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge into other articles
This purposes of article and that of its sister article, Violence against Mormons, seem contrived. Shouldn't this information be covered in appropriate articles regarding belief, history, and criticism? No other religious organization has an article of this type, nor do I feel that they should. ...comments? ~B F izz 06:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Mormonism has a special relationship with violence, and there is a lot of published material on the subject. It is in one sense a super-article for such topics as blood atonement, oath of vengeance, penalty (Mormonism), Danite, Salt sermon, Rigdon's July 4th oration, and Mountain Meadows massacre. It is also a repository for other intersections between Mormonism and violence that do not fit in any of these sub-articles, including doctrinal background and Smith's "blood for blood" doctrine. Also, the Book of Mormon contains extensive teachings on justified violence vs. pacifism, and Mormon leaders have had things to say about capital punishment, domestic violence, and Mormon participation in war. Originally, this article was also supposed to cover violence against Mormons, and now this has been split out, I worry that this article will become too one-sided. I think it's hard to understand Mormon doctrines relating to violence without understanding persecutions against Mormons. For example, the oath of vengeance was a response to the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum. Also, the Mountain Meadows massacre was, in the minds of the perpetrators, partly a response to past Mormon persecutions. CO GDEN  18:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think all of these topics are covered well in other articles as you have outlined above. More importantly, I don't think violence by or against Mormons is more significant than other Christian groups or even other religious groups. Blood for blood is not different than eye for an eye within the Judeo-Christian tradition. In addition, the LDS position on pacifism and war has little different with other Christian churches. COgden, do you see something unique that I am missing?
 * I tend to reject redundancy and all of this article is found elsewhere in as complete a form as found here. -- Storm  Rider  18:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many loose ends that don't really belong in any other article, but for which there is a lot of material in the literature. There is also no other article that ties everything together. The "blood for blood" doctrine is different from "eye for eye", because in "blood for blood", it was important that the blood was spilled on the ground as a sacrificial offering, and it was a precursor to the blood atonement doctrine. It also is responsible for Smith's opposition to hanging. Also, there is no article other than blood atonement that discusses capital punishment in the Mormon context, which is broader than just blood atonement, and includes material from the Book of Mormon and early D&C. There is also no other home for a detailed discussion of Smith's "on the fourth offense, God has delivered your enemies into your hands" revelation, or the various discussions of the eternal consequences of "shedding innocent blood". Finally, there is no home for any potential discussion of various Book of Mormon themes relating to violence, such as the justifiable homicide of Laban, holy wars, self defense, violence as God's retribution for disbelief, the reason for God's sometimes inaction in the face of violence, the treatment of captured soldiers, the merits of assassination, etc. CO GDEN  20:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see these would-be-homeless topics as significantly notable. There's probably a wealth of information from Ante-Nicene Fathers and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers alone to make a Wikipedia article on "Catholicism and violence". One could even argue that "The Bible and violence" should be created due to the literature available. But these kinds of articles would try to cover too much information. It's too broad, too disjoint. That's why I feel the topic is contrived. COgden, I realize that you've put some good effort into this article, and I don't want to discout yours or anyone else's edits here. I just feel that the notable information can find a home elsewhere. ...comments? ~B F izz 01:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not each topic, standing alone, is notable to merit an article, the entire intersection between Mormonism and violence is notable, and is touched upon in many books and articles. And some of the subjects, like Mormonism and capital punishment, would likely merit their own article at some point. There are already Religious violence, Christianity and violence, and Judaism and violence articles. That the subject matter is broad is not a problem, because in that case it just becomes a broad overview article with lots of wikilinks. I don't see a Catholicism and violence article, but there ought to be one. Unlike Catholicism, however, Mormonism and violence has the advantage that the scope of the subject matter is relatively discrete and manageable. CO GDEN  05:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced that there is s significantly different relationship between the LDS Church and violence. There is so little that is unique that to attempt to make it unique is contrived. Blood atonement did not begin with Joseph Smith; the concept has been around for thousands of years. Given that everything mentioned in this article is already mentioned elsewhere and in the same detail, I still don't see the need for the article. -- Storm  Rider  18:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea of atonement was not new, but the Mormon doctrine of blood atonement as introduced by Brigham Young was, as far as I know, unique. Of course, that topic already has its own article, so that alone is not the justification for this article. As there are so many other topics, I think that blood atonement deserves a prominent mention in this article, but it would just be one small part. I think the main topics of this article are: (1) theocratic violence (including capital punishment and blood atonement), (2) justifiable violent responses (including inspired homicide, retribution after the third offense, self defense, responses to rape and homosexuality, etc.), (3) oaths and penalties, (4) justified war, and (5) suicide and euthanasia. CO GDEN  20:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see this has petered out, but maybe someone is still watching. What are thoughts regarding at least merging Violence against Mormons into this article? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would absolutely support merging Violence against Mormons into this article. This article after all isn't titled Violence from Mormons; it seeks to document the relationship between Mormons and violence(making sense that it should talk about violence from and to Mormons). Also that other article is mostly composed from info in this article with a little extra elaboration.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible points of adjustment

 * The mentioning of proposition 8 in this page has little relation to violence. I can't see how politics + people vandalizing church property reflects the topic. Routerone (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Utah war could do with a mention in this article.


 * Mark Hoffman could be linked to this page after his attempted bombings following the failure of his forgeries.

Just pointing these things out. Routerone (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with all the above. CO GDEN  18:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I argue that these articles should be merged into others, if they are not merged, then the Mark Hofmann bombings should probably be noted in Violence against Mormons instead. I agree with the other points Routerone has made, assuming the continued existence of this article. ...comments? ~B F izz 01:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I've been considering the addition of Mark Hofmann information, and thinking that it should not be included. His violence was simple criminal Mormon-on-Mormon violence designed to hide his forgeries. His violence was not related or attempted to be justified by Mormon doctrines, and it could not really be called persecution, so it probably does not belong in either article. CO GDEN  05:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge from list
I propose that the List of Mormon wars and massacres be merged into this article. ...comments? ~B F izz 04:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. The other article is a very short list. CO GDEN  04:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Much belated, I've performed the merge. Feel free to clean it up and integrate it more carefully into the article. ...comments? ~B F izz 04:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No mention in Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement
It seems odd that there is no mention of criticism of "Mormonism and violence" in the Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article. ...comments? ~B F izz 17:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not a huge fan of the "Criticism of..." articles in the first place, as they tend to have a massive POV bias that is very difficult to write in a balanced fashion. The "Criticism of..." articles regarding Mormonism in general tend to be hit pieces that champion the critics of the religion.  And that is supposed to be NPOV?


 * Otherwise, my advise if you think something is missing from one of these articles is.... to write it and add to those articles rather than complain they are missing something. If it bugs you, do something about it.  --Robert Horning (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)