Talk:Violence against Mormons

For current related conversations, see: Talk:Mormonism and violence and Talk:Anti-Mormonism

Duplicates

This article appears to be a copy of multiple other articles:

• Mormonism and violence
• Protests_against_Proposition_8_supporters

Any reason for this repetition?    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   06:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete. My fault for the Prop 8. material in Mormonism and violence. I agree it belongs in Protests_against_Proposition_8_supporters, but I wasn't aware of that article. --Dr.enh (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep This article is made up of material placed into the article Mormonism and violence to change it's encyclopedic tone. While the subject may have a basis to actually exist, placing it on the article mentioned was inappropriate. However, the subject itself may be notable enough to keep the article. If this information is just a copy of other information from another article then it should be replaced with original prose and references.

I say leave it for now and allow it to grow. If there is no growth it can be deleted eventually, but I think there is no real need to move quickly.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I did leave an explanation as to why this page was created on Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008). Whatever is decided with regards to this page I will support(keep or delete), but I created it in good faith, not wanting to simply loose work of other editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article. It no longer contains the redundant sections, although in future, a small prose should be added with a redirect to the main article.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Mormonism and violence and Protests_against_Proposition_8_supporters. No need to have the duplication. Mormonism and violence is comprehensive enough to discuss violence by and against Mormons. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Duplications were removed sometime ago. Violence from and vilolence aginst are seperate topics. Article can easily be expanded and referenced.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is I don't think they need to be separate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It actualy seems very inappropriate to put the two together. Seperate articls will keep lines from being blurred and keeps subjects clear.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Project tag

I don't know why this is controversial, but you do need to discuss a bold move like removing a project tag.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

BRD - I was bold, you reverted, now we're discussing. As I said in my edit summary, there is nothing in the article that even mentions LGBT anything or anyone. There is absolutely nothing in the article to indicate it comes anywhere close to the scope of the LGBT project. LadyofShalott 02:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the good faith. The article originaly had some reduntant information that I removed, in order to keep the page from being just a copy of other information. Mentioned on this page you will see where I have mentioned that the redundant information should be rewritten with original prose and have new references. But since th debate about the scop of the project I have returned the information and will simply re-write it as time permits. However I have stated previously, an article does not have to mention the word gay or homosexual to be within the scope of Project LGBT. I tend to think that is kind of a narrow interpretation of what constitutes a project scope.

The article Platonic love is listed as within the scope of the project. The article is about an ancient greek form of sexuality which is no longer practiced in contemporary society under the original definition. It only lightly touches on Homoerotisim and the supposed homosexuality of Plato. Basicaly this is foundations of the modern trm of Pedaphile, and hardly seems appropriate or within the true scope of the project, but that is my opinion and not a basis for arguing against project participation.

I tend to agree that the amount of violence against mormons from the gay community is actualy very low, but to be honest and encyclopedic the subject should be covered in this article and it surely falls within the scope of the project to have an article that mentions Violence from the gay community if the article about the love of boys some 2500 years ago or more is.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge into other articles

See my comments on Talk:Mormonism and violence. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Horrible article - should be deleted

I just added a few tags speaking to the neutrality problems, orphan problems, etc. - and added a nomination for deletion tag. This article is a total rehash and synthesis of information that is fully treated in the other historical articles about Mormonism. It is very hard for me to read this and not see it as heavily biased by very definition of the scope of the article. You can't speak about this topic without broader historical context. The article is completely redundant. (And for that matter I think the same thing about Mormonism and violence, so an argument that this info was split out of that article, or should be merged there doesn't carry weight with me. I think they should both be deleted.]] Descartes1979 (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I unprodded it - please take it to AfD where there can be an actual discussion. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

For previous discussion (with unclear consensus), see Talk:Mormonism and violence#Merge into other articles. AfD never hurts; if consensus is to "keep" then usually there are suggestions for how to improve the article. If consensus is to "delete", well, then, it's deleted. If no one else does, then I'll send this and the Mormonism and violence through AfD in a couple days. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Descartes1979 (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree this article is ill-conceived. An article of this name wants to become simply a list of grievances by Mormons against non-Mormons. Though nobody disagrees that there has been some pretty outrageous persecution against Mormons, this persecution has to be placed in its proper historical context, and having an article of this name doesn't help us do that. Also, protests and vandalism relating to LDS Church opposition to gay rights is not "violence against Mormons" unless violence actually occurs.

I don't think there's much original material to be merged elsewhere, which isn't already in those other articles. (But we should check to make sure, before completely deleting anything.). I don't think this material should simply be merged to Mormonism and violence. That article is something different. In that article, persecution against Mormons is only important because it serves as context for why Mormons developed some of their doctrines relating to justifiable violence. COGDEN 00:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibility: move to "Persecution of Mormons"

Question: the lede mentions "violence and persecution." Would it make sense to re-name the article "Persecution of Mormons"? "Persecution" is a term which covers more issues, such as vandalism. Delia Peabody (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Then you raise even more of an NPOV problem: do political protests and vandalism constitute "persecution" against Mormons any more than they constitute "violence"? I think that most scholars agree that there has been persecution against Mormons, but there is not always a consensus on what acts against Mormons were "persecution", and what acts were something else other than persecution. For example, Mormons believe that anti-polygamy legislation and prosecution in the late 1800s was one of the classic instances of persecution against Mormons. But most Americans of the era thought, and maybe most Christians of today would agree, that the 19th century "persecutors" were simply "defending the institution of marriage" against alternative lifestyles, and would deny that doing so is persecution. So I think that renaming the article to "Persecution against Mormons" causes more problems than it solves. COGDEN 19:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

::We can report that Mormons believe anti-polygamy legislation was persecution, and that others disagree. However, the main issues of violence and vandalism seem to fit the description of persecution. Delia Peabody (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The suggested rename would fall more in line with similar articles on WP, such as Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, Persecution of Jews, and many others. Most "violence against" articles are redirects to "violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict <year>". I disagree that the rename "causes more problems than it solves" under Delia's same reasoning: simply present both views. I'm sure this approach is taken in the similarly-named articles previously mentioned.

Side-note: I forgot to AfD this article like I said I would. However, I think the rename would be a better option: it would redefine the scope of the article and (hopefully) lead us to a better article overall.

Side-side-note: Persecution of Mormons currently redirects to Anti-Mormonism. It might be wise to merge with that article instead. Just some things to consider. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

With the Persecution of Jews article, I think there is little controversy that pretty much everything in the article constitutes persecution. So I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the current Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses article because it includes things that are not clearly persecution. Is the Pledge of Allegiance persecution? Is military conscription? So either they need to change the article to something like "Allegations of persecution against Jehovah's Witnesses" or they need to remove the bits about saluting the flag and being drafted.

In the case of Mormons, there are instances where I think the consensus would agree there was persecution, such as some of the events in 1830s Missouri, and what happened in Illinois after Joseph Smith was assassinated. But there is not a consensus that enforcement of anti-polygamy laws in the 1800s constituted persecution. I absolutely think it was religious persecution, but not everybody agrees with me. At the same time, not everybody thinks that protests and vandalism after Proposition 8 is persecution. In fact, many would argue that the protests were against persecution of gays and lesbians by Mormons, who now are on the other side of the marriage rights issue. So if we are going to discuss these issues, the article can't be entitled "Persecution against Mormons" without causing a neutrality problem. COGDEN 21:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::Again, we can report that the Mormons view the enforcement of anti-polygamy laws as persecution without taking sides in the dispute. I would say, however, that "Anti-Mormonism" would have been my fall-back proposal, and if there is already an article by that name, it seems redundant to have two very similar articles. A merger would be a good solution. --Delia Peabody (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So I guess that leads to the question: should we merge this article into anti-Mormonism? The only problem is, I doubt you could really make a non-fringe argument that protests against LDS support of Proposition 8 is anti-Mormonism. Anti-Mormonism has to rise above mere criticism of, or protest against the policies of, the Mormon faith or its churches. As for vandalism in retaliation to Proposition 8, the same applies. This vandalism was not about Mormons as a people, but about the policies of the LDS Church. This is exactly the same reason why people who oppose the policies of Israel, or even commit acts of terrorism in Palestine, are not necessarily antisemitic. COGDEN 00:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I agree with you there. Anti-Mormonism must be against Mormons per se, and not against a policy that is not unique to Mormons. (There was a lot of debate about why opponents of Prop. 8 did not vandalize the black churches, which were promoting it just as much as the Mormons, but the consensus seemed to be that Mormons were a more politically expedient target.) Delia Peabody (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Perspectives

There are a couple of things that everyone has to remember about this topic - maybe you already know this, but for the sake of being obnoxiously explicit...

1. There is wide disagreement on the definition of the term "anti-Mormon". Within the LDS church this term means "anything that is critical of the church". Among the rest of the world this term means "prejudice and religious bigotry against Mormons". There is a significant issue here because there is a burgeoning group of people that criticize the church on grounds that do not qualify as bigotry. In my opinion, Mormonism's real critics are scholars, scientists, archaeologists, and other educated people that have no interest in violence or bigotry. There are sad chapters of violence against Mormons. But there are sad chapters of violence against almost any group of people.
2. The membership of the LDS church has a huge persecution complex ever since the days of their expulsion from Missouri, the Extermination Order (Mormonism), and Death of Joseph Smith, Jr., the horrific events surrounding the exodus to Utah, the Utah War etc. This is a documented and studied phenomenon.
3. I have seen zealous Mormons on the Wikipedia pushing these views and creating polemic articles (like List of Anti-Mormon Publications and Persecution of Mormons for example). Articles like this also allow Mormon wikipedians to attack and stereotype their critics with pejoratives when in reality their critics are not the crazy people who make shit up like they used to be. Maybe I am cynical, but I am an ex-mormon, and I have been dealing with vehement Mormon apologists on the Wikipedia for several years now. Obviously not all Mormon wikipedians are like this. Most are great editors that build consensus. But there is a slice of editors out there that are very much pushing an agenda.

At the end of the day - I would like to see the article "anti-Mormon" toned down a little and clearly differentiate between legitimate criticism of the church, and what is really "anti-Mormon". I would like to see this article deleted, and its content folded into the other articles on Mormon history.

That's my humble opinion, and I fully recognize that maybe it is not an accurate perception - so slap me down if you disagree. Queue zealous Mormon Wikipedian and accusations of "anti-Mormonism"...

--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think ultimately, much of what is now in the anti-Mormonism article should be moved to Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which I think should be renamed as "Criticism of Mormonism", or made into a sub-article of the latter). It is much more neutral, when you are discussing criticism, to refer to it simply as "criticism", rather than focusing on the motives of the writer, and thus whether they are "pro-" Mormon or "anti-" Mormon. That's not to say there isn't a place for an "anti-Mormonism" article; for example, overt persecution or discrimination might be considered anti-Mormonist, but maybe the article should be split into three separate articles: "opposition to Mormonism" (discussing how, why, and when people have opposed the religion of Mormonism), "persecution of Mormons" (including only real persecution--not this Prop. 8 stuff), and "caricatures of Mormonism" (discussing the political cartoons and Mormon stereotypes). COGDEN 02:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

::I think it is important to have two articles, one on "criticism" and one on "anti-Mormonism." The reason is that if you lump bonafide anti-Mormonism in with criticism, it tends to legitimize bigotry. The parallel you make above to anti-semitism is a good analogy. Anti-semitism is a real and odious phenomenon, which should not be dismissed as "criticism of Jews." On the other hand, it is equally odious to brand critics of Israeli policy as anti-semites. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Does everyone agree that this article should be combined with anti-Mormonism? Delia Peabody (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Tentative agree. Would like to see this article deleted.--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. COGDEN 22:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. There may be other options, but this is a very good one, imho. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Violence against Mormons actually seems to be a POV fork of Mormonism and violence. Does it make more sense to merge back any useful, non-duplicated information there? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

:Mormonism and violence also looks like a POV fork. I think it ought to be dismantled and merged into Mormonism and Anti-Mormonism. I don't hold any particular brief for the Mormons, but I don't like to see Wikipedia used for holy wars against any religion. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism and violence covers both violence done to and done by Mormons, as well as general attitudes/beliefs about violence in the Mormon community. It tries to be NPOV by showing showing both sides of that coin, where Violence against Mormons is decidedly one-sided. While there is some overlap, much of what is discussed in Mormonism and violence doesn't fit under anti-Mormonism. Likewise anti-Mormonism couldn't be properly merged into Mormonism and violence, as many of the modern examples of what has been termed by some as anti-Mormonism is not violent by nature. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I see the Mormonism and violence as focusing mainly on the doctrinal aspect of violence within Mormonism--things like capital punishment, penalties, law of vengeance, blood atonement, justified war, self-defense, etc. Violence against Mormons is given mainly as a background to understand why early Mormons developed those doctrines. I think this doctrinal focus is shown by the fact that it is entitled "Mormonism and violence", rather than "Mormons and violence".COGDEN 01:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

::::Yes. My initial reaction to Mormonism and violence was to think that the article was a vehicle for editors with an anti-Mprmon POV, but I checked and discovered that Wikipedia also has Judaism and violence, Christianity and violence, Islam and violence, and so forth, so it is routine. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Plus, the Mormonism and violence article is also about anti-violence within Mormon doctrine or practice. I think that article is necessary because it is a home for several topics that really have no other home on Wikipedia. But I think that article is something different from what this article was trying to be, so I favor moving the material in this material to anti-Mormonism or "Criticism of Mormonism", depending on what it is, and deleting this article. COGDEN 00:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please for the love of Elohim, can we use the phrase anti-Mormon appropriately? Anti-Mormon = crazy people that say Mormons have horns. Mormon critic = real criticism. --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we'll need to figure out a more precise way to distinguish between anti-Mormonism and Mormon criticism. I'd say that anti-Mormonism is opposition to Mormonism which may or may not include criticism, while Mormon criticism is just criticism which may or may not include opposition. Anti-Mormonists can either criticize Mormonism or praise Mormonism (though more often the former), and critics can be either very pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon. So I see the Criticism of Mormonism article as discussing the history of Mormon criticism, without regard to the motives or actions of the critics, and including criticism by both Mormons (for example, Orson Pratt was a critic of 19th century orthodox Mormon theology because he openly opposed the Adam-God doctrine) and anti-Mormons. For the anti-Mormonism article, we don't really care so much what the anti-Mormonists say about Mormons (i.e., the particular criticisms); rather, we care about what they do (i.e., how they oppose Mormonism). COGDEN 00:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

How do we fold Mormon perceptions of "Anti-Mormon" into that definition? Remember that once something is branded "anti-mormon", it is basically satanic to Mormons - regardless of whether the designation is earned or not.--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

::::::I don't see a problem with classifying all forms of "Violence against Mormons" as "anti-Mormonism." Or shall we say, it's not an acceptable form of criticism. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC) I am hoping to wrap up another editing project soon, at which point I will undertake the merger. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)