nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 298:
Line 298: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (view source)
Revision as of 14:12, June 28, 2008
, 14:12, June 28, 2008→Non-encyclopedic Material Here: Two separate issues clarified
I don't mean to be offensive when I say this, but you didn't read the previous discussions on this talk page, did you? I never cited a bunch of non-Mormons as to what the LDS church believes. I quoted Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith, (all Mormon Presidents) as well as other Mormons in good standing with their church. I've given documentation about what these men believe from their own mouths. They are the ones making the claims about their doctrines and theology. So, unless Mormon leaders are an unreliable source for Mormon doctrine, then I think that they should suffice. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't mean to be offensive when I say this, but you didn't read the previous discussions on this talk page, did you? I never cited a bunch of non-Mormons as to what the LDS church believes. I quoted Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith, (all Mormon Presidents) as well as other Mormons in good standing with their church. I've given documentation about what these men believe from their own mouths. They are the ones making the claims about their doctrines and theology. So, unless Mormon leaders are an unreliable source for Mormon doctrine, then I think that they should suffice. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
: This issue has become muddled. It appears that the following has occurred:
:# Ultimahero created a debate page "Debate: Are Mormons Christians?", and argued for the affirmative. An hour later Ultimahero was blocked for "violat[ing the] 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk" and the debate was deleted on the grounds that it was "posted by account that has been blocked, no other debaters". The debate was recreated by other editors (which, if nothing else, showed that others ''did'' want to debate it) and several times, and deleted again each time for various reasons (including that it was "non-encyclopedic", which is odd given that ''all'' Conservapedia debates are "non-encyclopedic" by virtue of them being debates, which encyclopedias don't have).
:# Ultimahero then started editing this article, ''but made no claim that Mormonism was not Christian''.
:# Skipping various other discussions, Andy then claims that "It's inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not "Christian", ''despite this not being what Ultimahero had done in this article''.
:# While Ultimahero addresses the point that the article doesn't claim that Mormonism is not Christian, three administrators disagree that it's wrong ''in principle'' to claim that a given body is not Christian. That's not to say that it's ''not'' Christian. In order to decide that, one needs to determine what "Christian" means. It's clear that Mormonism is not an Islamic cult, nor a Hindu cult, and arguably it is a ''Christian'' cult. So really, whether it is Christian or not is not the issue. The issue is whether that question can even be ''discussed''.
: So we have two distinct issues being mixed up here. Now, on to specific responses to Andy's comments:
:"''it is inappropriate to attempt to label a large group of people as "non-Christian" unless they describe themselves that way or it is undisputed''": I don't think anybody is suggesting labelling the individuals in the religion as non-Christian, but (potentially) labelling ''the religion itself'' as non-Christian. Are you happy to label the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and the Ku Klux Klan as "Christian"?
:"''...a ... politician's claim ... about his own beliefs should be questioned, particularly when the evidence is abundant that his claim is self-serving and contradicted by other evidence.''": ''If'' the evidence about a religion is abundant and self-serving and contradicted by other evidence, why should the same not apply to an organisation?
:"''...don't rant and rave here...''": Excuse me? Are you accusing three of your administrators of "ranting and raving"? (I'm not counting Ultimahero, because he wasn't arguing that point.) Rather, we are making reasoned arguments, and getting an insult in return.
:"''I'm sure we could find other people wanting to rant and rave against your church in the same way, and we're not going down that slippery and destructive slope.''": As I've already pointed out, people already do criticise my beliefs (including "ranting and raving"), and I respond with reasoned arguments, not censorship. Why is this particular belief protected?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:12, 28 June 2008 (EDT)