The result was Keep In the context of WP:SS there are probably some legitimate concerns related to this article and the current hierarchy of articles related to LDS. On the other hand, an evaluation of this article on its individual merits clearly supports a KEEP on the the basis of WP:GNG and WP:V. My recommendation is that members of the LDS Project and other relevant projects develop some consensus on the best approach to covering all aspects of LDS (pro and con) in a logical way.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article strikes me as being uneeded in regards to criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement here on wikipedia. Despite being a page using cited context, everything discussed on this page in regards to criticism of the Book of Mormon is already found in these articles; Criticism of the Book of Mormon, Origin of the Book of Mormon, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, we must consider that there are too many critical pages on this topic as it is. The content in this page also seems to have been merely cut+pasted from the pages I have listed and not wrote in an original style. Hence there is nothing on this page about the Book of Mormon, which cant already be found in greater detail on the following pages to which I have listed. Once you take out the Book of Mormon content which is already repeated, you are left with a tiny bit about the Doctrine & Convenants which is thin in detail and simply relies on the Book of Mormon criticism to be valid. The book of Abraham criticism is well documented and in a high quality detail in the Book of Abraham article, and also again, the "critical" content has been cut and pasted from the parent page. The article then goes into an almost irrelevant explaination of the KJV version of the bible being used by the church and the LDS views on the KJV version. So really to summarise, is this article really worthful? Considering its content has been simply cut and pasted from parent articles already covering the subject, and has no new critical content or purpose to contribute? Routerone (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really that useful when you come right down to it. The whole hierarchy needs to be reviewed and dealt with accordingly. If there is a hierarchy then it needs to be relevant and obvious... and it needs to exist, not just mask the promulgation of more "Criticism of..." articles. Padillah (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism of Mormon sacred texts
◦At the bottom:
Just checking in because someone else asked me to. For what it's worth I see the following considerations.
1. The article on Joseph Smith already contains a plethora of criticism to make the article 'balance.' Therefore a second page showing criticism of him is unfair unless there is a page somewhere which reflects the Mormon perspective or respect for Joseph Smith. I know, this discussion is not about Joseph Smith, but the same principle applies universally. In essence if an article which is balanced already exists (i.e. an article on the Book of Mormon) it is assumed that it will be framed by both criticisms and respect for the context of those who believe the text. Thus a criticism is redundant especially if there already exists links to criticism or further reading including criticism of the subject.
2. Including criticisms of a religious text (no need to call it sacred as that seems to be redundant) are fair form but I do not see the function of criticism of any religion, unless of course there is balance by allowing for a positive presentation or beliefs section of a faith group. In fact, here in Canada that might stray dangerously close to our hate speech language. I would qualify this by assuming that the religious intent of any text is treated respectfully somewhere, otherwise Wikipedia entertains unfair bias.
Also, consider this model. In my discussions on Smith I am not at all averse to the existence of criticism concerning him, I would ideally see a bare-bones neutral profile which would then link to both a critical and a contextual page so that those looking for either might find what they are looking for. Yeah, I'm not exactly sure what that would look like yet but if they'd let me at it I'd have a go. See having an article on Joseph Smith which allows criticism and shuns what Mormon critics call "Proselyting" and then also having an article dedicated to criticisms of Joseph Smith as well is not balanced in any way.
In short:
1. A criticism should not exist if there exists a previously neutral (i.e. respectful and fairly critical) article. 2. Criticism of texts (if not previously addressed) is fair game but dedicated criticism of a religious, ethnic, or cultural movement is not.
Canadiandy1 (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy[reply]