Talk:Prosperity theology

Kenneth Copeland

Kenneth Copeland should be included in the list of names in the third paragraph. I know that Kenneth Copeland is mentioned later, however, he really is one of the main people that directly has taught the Prosperity theology the longest.Easeltine (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption‎

So, can we add Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption‎ somewhere into the article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a good addition somewhere in the criticism section. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

As a starter, I added a short paragraph. I included just one source so as not to overload the footnotes, but of course there are many more if anyone thinks they're needed here to establish that Oliver's critique is worthy of a mention in this article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you folks! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead of the article

I removed two paragraphs (out of five)from the lead of the article. It was becoming it's own article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm ok with cutting down the size of the lead. WP:LEAD states, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." It should remain "a concise overview of the article's topic . . . [identifying]] the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." With that being said, I'm going to re-add the historical summary paragraph. Ltwin (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ltwin that is okay with me. However would you agree that it could be a little more concisely worded? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Elmmapleoakpine: I don't have a problem with conciseness. If anyone wants to improve the wording, they can have at it. Ltwin (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Dominionism

Are we perhaps placing undo weight on the links between Dominion Theology and prosperity theology? The article connects the two without qualification. Many (maybe even most) prosperity teachers do not emphasize Dominionism. There is some overlap, but I don't think we should give the impression that the two are always connected. I'm specifically concerned about this part of the last paragraph under the "Theology" heading:

Prosperity theology casts itself as the reclamation of true doctrine and thus part of a path to Christian dominion over secular society.[35] It contends that God's promises of prosperity and victory to Israel in the Old Testament apply to New-Covenant Christians today, and that faith and holy actions release this prosperity.[40] C. Peter Wagner, a leader of the New Apostolic Reformation, has argued that if Christians take dominion over aspects of society, the Earth will experience "peace and prosperity".[45]

I'm not sure how Coleman phrases this, but would it be better for us to write that "Prosperity theology sometimes overlaps with Dominion Theology, casting itself as the reclamation of true doctrine and thus part of a path to Christian dominion over secular society"? Ltwin (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prosperity theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120611015733/http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4183_confession.pdf to http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4183_confession.pdf

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

David Crank

Pastor David Crank of Faith Church is offering financial semenars citing selected Bible Verses that sounds very much like the Prosperity Theology in St. Louis, Missouri and West Palm Beach, Florida. Here it is, 2 AM, and KMOV-TV is airing his infomercial where he is also trying to sell his book. Bushido Hacks (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prosperity theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161229150522/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-inaugural-to-include-prayers-from-prosperity-preachers/2016/12/28/9830fbae-cd4f-11e6-85cd-e66532e35a44_story.html to https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-inaugural-to-include-prayers-from-prosperity-preachers/2016/12/28/9830fbae-cd4f-11e6-85cd-e66532e35a44_story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Security and Wealth in introduction - citations needed

'a religious belief among some Christians, who hold that financial blessing and physical well-being are always the will of God for them, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to religious causes will increase one's material wealth. Prosperity theology views the Bible as a contract between God and humans: if humans have faith in God, he will deliver security and prosperity.'

This claim is dubious.

I'm tempted to use Contradict-inline or just delete it as per wikipedia rules since the claims appear to be 'nonsense and unlikely to be true'.

But this is not my field - so I'm not going to attempt any serious edits here, but I've added 2 'citations needed' in the opening introduction.

Claiming that the people listed in this article preached a doctrine of personal wealth and security is a big claim that needs primary source citations and headings in the article to show more detail. I'd expect to see two headings:

- god promises material wealth

- god promises security

But I'm going to be seriously surprised if you can come up with primary sources for those preachers making those claims. But that's what you need to be able to do if you want to make that claim in the introduction of your article.

I read Brian Houston's "you need more money" and several other books like it years ago and my understanding was:

- the purpose of prosperity from God was generosity to others. ie: you 'get' so you can 'give' to the poor (not 10% - 100% - one dollar in; one dollar out)

- security always come from faith in God, not through miracles or works.

So claiming the opposite here, in the introdcution is a big claim, and I'd expect to see really good citations to first source material, eg: a book by one of the preachers highlighted in the article.

Arthur (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but Wikipedia editors don't do original research. Wikipedia editors report what published reliable sources say on a subject. Therefore, there is no requirement that we cite primary sources in the lede or anywhere else in the article. Ltwin (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia editors don't do original research - and I wasn't asking for that. Yes wikipedia editors report what reliable published sources say on a subject, which is why I added the citation tag. I appreciate you are trying to be helpful, thinking I'm a newbie (which I am) but it's coming across as defensive. What are you trying to defend?

A primary source is the most reliable. And putting things in the introduction that are not backed by the most reliable sources, is really asking for a citation tag. Hence why there are quality complaints on the "word of faith" article for self-published sources and Wikipedia verifiability. Primary sources do have their own set of problems, but when you are talking about LIVING PEOPLE and WHAT THYE HAVE SAID (and what they have said their 'catch phrases' mean) primary sources are incredibly relavent and important.

You've cited Wilson 2007 (err, Melissa Harris-Lacewell? Melissa Harris-Perry? the author of that 'chapter' - not sure how that should be referenced...) for the wealth part, and I've checked the reference. As I said - this is not my subject specialty - but this see pretty poor reference - on page 141 he himself says "Unlike theologians, I am not interested in the biblical accuracy of the doctrine per se;" - wheras a citation here would suggest that is exactly what the citation would claim. OK - re-reading that, maybe that's not what others would imply. Maybe it's sufficient that he's documenting that the statement has been attributed to one of these preachers. But I personally think that a reader would expect that not only do the preachers say this, but they defend it as biblical doctrine. I don't see evidence, and certainly not cited evidence, of that.

The only primary source wilson claims is "The Reverend Creflo Dollar of the World Changers’ Church International in College Park, Georgia". Since Creflo is cited in the text of the article, the citation can't be discounted completely - but the cited text does say that his is the most egrarious, therefore in my view, possibly the only one to make this claim. A better reference would be one that shows that several (most?) of the preachers identified with 'prosperity gospel' in this article make this claim. If it's only made by Creflo, it hardly warrants being mentioned in the introduction.

So I'm going to restore the citation-needed on 'security' and add a Better-source} to the wilson claim on wealth.

finally, don't undo my edits and then add the citations. If citations are not needed, undo the citations. If citations are needed, replace my citation-needed with the citation. 'wealth' is not mentioned anywhere in the article at all - writing that the article has plenty to say about the claim of wealth in the prosperity gospel is unsupported in the material

Arthur (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Since you self-describe as a newbie, I will give you friendly advice in regards to your questioning of my or any other editor's motives. Assume good faith.

• In regards to the article, Wikipedia editors are specifically discouraged from citing their own interpretations of primary sources. As WP:RS states, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." You have, I'm afraid, misunderstood WP:PSTS, which states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
• In regards to the lede, citations are not required for every claim because the lede should only be an overview of the article. Therefore, all statements and claims in the lede should be summarize statements and claims backed up by reliable sources in the article. For example, the Wilson citation was already in the article. I just duplicated it to meet your objections. (See MOS:LEADCITE)
• Harris-Lacewell, the author of the chapter (Wilson is the editor of the whole book) does say "I am not interested in the biblical accuracy of the doctrine per se" in the context of deciding what is heresy or not. That only means the author does not have a theological agenda—she is not trying to prove that prosperity gospel is orthodoxy or not. She's writing on the role that prosperity gospel has in contemporary American religion (particularly the black church). That statement has no bearing on whether or not she's a reliable source who understands the subject matter.
• "wheras a citation here would suggest that is exactly what the citation would claim"—No the citation simply tells the reader that this isn't original research but has been taken from a verifiable, published source that is considered reliable.
• "Maybe it's sufficient that he's documenting that the statement has been attributed to one of these preachers." We do not have to show that every statement written in a reliable source can be traced to a sermon by a prosperity preacher. If a reliable source says "the prosperity gospel teaches that followers who tithe regularly and maintain positive, faithful attitudes and language will reap financial gains in the form of higher incomes and nicer homes and cars," then that is a statement we can include in Wikipedia. We don't need to analyze every sermon ever preached to verify if that's true.
• "'wealth' is not mentioned anywhere in the article at all - writing that the article has plenty to say about the claim of wealth in the prosperity gospel is unsupported in the material"—Really? Where did this come from then, "Wealth is interpreted in prosperity theology as a blessing from God, obtained through a spiritual law of positive confession, visualization, and donations.[49]" or this "While Malachi has generally been celebrated by Christians for its passages about the messiah, teachers of prosperity theology usually draw attention to its descriptions of physical wealth.[51]"?
• It is ok to add citations to the lede, but they don't have to be primary sources. Ltwin (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion in lead of article regarding connection to Judaism

First time proposing a change to an article -- please let me know if I'm doing it wrong!

This proposed change regards the claim in the lead regarding Prosperity theology that "It is based on interpretations of the Bible that are mainstream in Judaism (with respect to the Hebrew Bible),[3]."

I looked at the reference and the only statement that addresses this that I could find is on p. 67 of the print edition: "Although Judaism has similar notions about prosperity--our prayers often ask for sustenance--it is, by far, not the highlight of the service. We do not worship the almighty dollar. If we're asking for anything, it's for stuff like health or good tidings. But the focus of most of our prayers is praising God and actually has nothing to do with our wants and needs."

That the source may not be authoritative enough to begin with and also that the author in any case does not seem to support the claim leads me to suggest that it be modified or deleted.

Thanks in advance for your comments and suggestions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.63.5 (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I had not noticed this message before until the removal. I could not access page 67, but have no reason to believe that you modified the above quotes. I think the removal is fine: as you said, that type of book should not be considered a high authority on the topic. Moreover, that was the lead, a summary of the article, with the body not covering it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Which Bible translation to use

I reverted a good faith change of Bible quotes from KJV to NLT. The editor who changed the quotes to NLT did so for the admirable reason that the quotes are easier to read and also because of a claim that NLT is what Millennials use. I find that second claim dubious. However it was not a claim in the article so won’t ask for a citation ;)

Bible translations are a thorny issue and KJV is often chosen simply because it avoids the inevitable war over what translation is best to use. It was brave to change to NLT, but NLT is a translation that uses the concept of dynamic equivalence and for that reason there are many who hold concerns about it, as it can imply specific interpretations that others disagree with. It clearly does so to aid clarity but it is a very debatable subject. This is not the place for the debate though - here we just note that there are people who would debate it.

So a translation that sticks to literal renderings would be better. Or, if you can show that everyone uses NLT, then that would be okay too. However I doubt there is any consensus in the church over its usage. ESV and others are also very popular. I would suggest sticking with one of several literal translations though. — Sirfurboy (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: there never was a consensus about it but in 2019 I started this thread. As for NLT I'd have to check, but KJV is hardly considered literal rendering (and is considered archaic enough that some groups today support doctrines using quotes from it but that don't take in consideration the English of the epoch). There exist interlinear literal translations that attempt to match word for word, although they are rarely used outside of academia it seems and can be awkward to read... Anyway, my suggestion there was for MOS to suggest consistency within a same article (so I agree that if this article mostly uses KJV a consensus should be formed to switch), although it was considered unnecessary to add anything to the manual of style guide. —PaleoNeonate – 12:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-Christian prosperity theologies?

I'm no expert, but I think that there may exist non-Christian movements that could also be considered "prosperity theologies". I have heard that said in reference to the Buddhist Soka Gakkai International, but have no idea whether there is any truth to that. It occurs to me that "prosperity theologies" might all be considered to be misunderstandings of the concept of karma. (In one sense I myself am outside of all this, having been raised to be, and remaining, a non-evangelical atheist, who does not believe in either theologies nor karma, but respects many people who do. Therefore, my own ability to understand the nuances may be limited.) Acwilson9 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has authority over material objects

There is a line in here which is beyond ridiculous and I edited it but it was edited back. No prosperity gospel teacher of any legitimacy would say that a person has spiritual authority over every material object. You will not find this in any writing of Kenneth Hagin or Kenneth Copeland. If this was correct God would be pleased if you walked past a neighbor's house and prayed that they paint their house another color or that the wife will start a relationship with you. In 99% of cases you don't have authority over what you don't own. You have spiritual authority over an object you own and any object where someone invites you to pray about it or in relation to it. You can pray that a Mormon Church is not built in your district. But you have no authority over that. You are just asking God. It is not your land. Whatever the outcome is you must accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.189.80 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You inserted the following parenthetical phrase into an existing sentence: but only if you legally own the objects or are invited to pray or otherwwise act in relation to them. I am the editor who reverted because I wanted to know if the source cited (Coleman, 2000, p. 28) made such a distinction or if this was original research on your part. Ltwin (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

i cab't think of a written source offhand. I have heard many sermons and read many books over the years. It's a complex topic. It relates to the concept of spiritual authority. Say if there was an ancient mask from Egypt or wherever and you were concerned that it was inviting an evil atmosphere into a place. If you owned it, you could pray over it and throw it away or give it away if you wanted to. If it was in someone else's house, you could pray silently about it but you wouldn't have the right to touch it unless the owner invited you to. (The concept of spiritual authority follows ethical and legal rules.) If it was in a shared facility, for example, a church building or office, it is more complex, e.g. a CEO would have rights in relation to most objects except when major decisions are involved. It might be safer just to leave any references to material objects out of the article text.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.189.80 (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge from Word of Faith

I suggest that Word of Faith is merged into this, Prosperity theology. The former literally says they are the same thing in the first eight words of the article, and i cannot see that they are not the same thing; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 08:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think the lead paragraph of Word of Faith is just mistaken and needs to be corrected. It looks like Word of Faith is a particular denomination or tradition within the broader prosperity theology movement. Said tradition advocates prosperity theology and was founded by one of the leading figures of prosperity theology, but it is not synonymous with prosperity theology. Prosperity theology includes other denominations, churches, etc. which are not affiliated with "Word of Faith". Similarly, "Word of Faith" advocates more besides prosperity theology. According to Prosperity theology, "Word of Faith" was founded as "a new prosperity-oriented teaching developed in the 1970s that differed from the one taught by Pentecostal evangelists", which suggests "Word of Faith" is not synonymous with the broader prosperity theology movement. Scyrme (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I've since edited the lead paragraph of Word of Faith to remove the misleading text. Scyrme (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Paid edit

The IP has to respond to my paid edit inquiry in order to edit further. Official stance makes me believe they act on behalf of the LDS Church or even that they are employed by it. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This user suddenly accused me of being a paid editor out of nowhere, and spammed my page repeatedly with this accusation. This claim is utterly baseless and untrue. I am not employed by the LDS Church, and receive no financial compensation of any form from it. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You just had to say so the first time I asked. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You spammed it multiple different times in multiple different locations while I was busy initially creating the relevant section on this talk page, and then did it again upon me finishing the creation of the relevant talk section. It honestly appeared like an attempt at harassment by you due to that. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Editorialized opinion inserted into Criticism section as a violation of multiple rules

The user GenoV84 keeps inappropriately reverting the removal of a small section of the criticism section. The part in question is directly after the relevant section outlining the actual criticism made of Prosperity Theology by LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks. GenoV84 keeps attaching a highly editorialized opinion article from Harper's Bazaar that provides no evidence for its claims, along with the violation "However, Mormonism has an established tradition of entrepreneurship and, unlike adherents of most mainline Protestant denominations, Mormons have very little ambivalence about the acquisition of wealth.[98] A Harper's Magazine report on the relationship between the finances of the LDS Church and those of the Republican Party, asserted that LDS beliefs and practices were like the prosperity gospel and Protestant work ethic "on steroids."[98] GenoV84 is clearly attempting to prove a point here, using an editorialized opinion article that presents no evidence to attempt to convince readers that the criticism of prosperity theology given by Dallin H. Oaks isn't really what the LDS Church teaches or practices. It's also a POV violation, as it clearly takes an antagonistic POV with the claim "unlike adherents of most mainline Protestant denominations, Mormons have very little ambivalence about the acquisition of wealth." 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You're not allowed to edit without responding to my paid edit inquiry. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The IP has denied that they are employed by the LDS Church and that they get any form of monetary or financial compensation for their editing of Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Good, now that's settled, let's discuss the actual text in question. The IP (user 2601..., it sure would be easier to know it's you and to talk with you if you made an account) has been reverted several times, twice with accusations of vandalism, which the edits weren't, and once with a question about unpaid editing, which we are assured is not the case. I have to say, i understand the editor's desire to remove the sentences in question, as they seem to me to speak opinion in Wikipedia's voice, which we ought not do, and are referenced to a single article in Harper's Magazine, not known as a journal of theology or interpretation or religion. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, even if the anonymous IP is not paid to edit this article, he/she declared on his/her Talk page that he/she is a lay member of the LDS Church, therefore he/she clearly has a conflict of interest in removing those informations, which are quotes that I brought directly from the cited source rather than my own interpretation. The first time that I reverted his/her edits in May 2021, I warned him/her that Wikipedia is not censored, since his/her first edit appeared to me as an attempt to censor the aforementioned paragraph and entirely remove the source itself. Perhaps, I was right about that. GenoV84 (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This is wholly incorrect. It is not a conflict of interest for me to remove what Lindsay mentioned seems to speak opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and are referenced to a single opinion article. My background as a lay member does not change that or create a conflict of interest in removing it. Muslim users make edits to articles on Islam-related topics all the time, it is not a conflict of interest for them to remove editorialized opinion articles presented as speaking with Wikipedia's voice on these topics. Your accusation that this was censorship is also blatantly false, as I left in where the article was referenced in a different part of the page (Comparisons with other movements), without the POV issues that it had in the usage where I removed it. So now that this is settled, please cease the false personal attacks, Geno, and address Lindsay's actual points, which concur with my rationale for the removal. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

False personal attacks... Seriously? The only person you seem to be preoccupied with on your talk page and the revision history of this article is me: "GenoV84 here", "GenoV84 there", "GenoV84 is this", "GenoV84 is that"... I never attacked you in the first place, while you seem to be quite upset and bitter towards me. For what? Because I reverted your edits while you never thought about opening a new section on this talk page and discuss about that paragraph until I suggested you to do so? GenoV84 (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, those "Muslim users" that you mentioned very often disrupt or vandalize Islam-related articles on Wikipedia on purpose, usually to remove embarassing or problematic facts about their own religion in order to censor Wikipedia, instead of trying to contribute in a constructive way. I have no reason to believe that "LDS users" wouldn't do the same, since this kind of stuff related to politics and religion happens too frequently here. GenoV84 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

False yet again. You immediately made personal attacks (vandalism, disruptive editing, etc) with no evidence, and continued to make them simply because I removed things that, as Lindsay mentioned, have blatant issues. I simply correctly stated what you did each time. So my removal of that was contributing in a constructive way. There was no need to open up a talk page to make that removal, due to the blatant issues with it. The fact that I left the link to the article in higher up in the "Comparisons with other movements" section where it's usage wasn't blatantly problematic already told you from the start that this wasn't an attempt at censorship. Which exposes how egregious your habit of engaging in false personal attacks against me was, and how baseless your insistence on reverting my edits was. Now, enough with this back and forth about your behavior here. Lindsay presented good reasons for why the removal is necessary, do you have any rebuttal to those or explanation of why the section in question should in fact remain in the article. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You definitely take things too seriously with your claims about personal attacks, you even accused Tgeorgescu that he was harassing you while he clearly wasn't, he was trying to make sure that you weren't editing behind payment because you didn't answer to him, despite the fact that he asked you multiple times. Anyway, I think that we should keep the editorial from Harper's Magazine because it's still a valuable source of informations related to the topic of this article, which is prosperity gospel, and it would be nonsensical to remove it because it belongs to the Criticism section. LindsayH is right when she says that Harper's Magazine is not a journal about religion or theology, but that's not a good reason to remove it. According to this reasoning, we should remove every author, activist, politician, journalist or public personality that criticizes a particular religion (for example, Christianity) because he/she may not be an academic or a scholar of Christian theology or history of Christianity, but that's not a good reason to exclude his/her opinions from Wikipedia. GenoV84 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

He asked me multiple times while I was in the process of creating this section on the talk page in the first place, so I didn't see any of them until after I had finished, and he immediately created more upon me finishing. Hence why I said it sure seemed like harassment. This editorial from Harper's Magazine is already included further up in the article, in the "Comparison with other movements" section of the article. There, its usage isn't problematic and doesn't have a warped POV. So there appears to be no reason to keep the usage you want in the criticism section, unless you are in fact specifically trying to warp the POV. In which case that's not allowed anyways. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources can be cited in multiple sections of the same article, and quoting directly from the cited sources to illustrate an author's point of view or opinion is allowed on Wikipedia, and that's exactly what I did. GenoV84 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

And, frankly, stating that a social group scores high on entrepreneurship and has a good Protestant work ethic is not even remotely libelous. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

So that's a "no" then, you don't have any rebuttal to the pointing out of the blatant issues with its usage in the criticism section or valid reason why it should stay there. The usage of the article in the "Comparisons with other movements" section is both adequate and appropriate, and nothing rule-abiding is gained by keeping its current usage in the criticism section. Also, saying that a group that scored high on entrepeneurship and has a good Protestant work ethic automatically equals all the baggage and issues of Prosperity Theology is incredibly libelous, especially when that assertion is used specifically as an attempt to rebut that group's official condemnation of Prosperity Theology. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I have already explained above why I don't consider it necessary to remove the paragraph, since quotes can be be borrowed directly from the cited sources on Wikipedia, and since Wikipedia is not censored, criticism of political parties, associations, religious groups, organizations, etc. is also allowed on Wikipedia. However, I agree with you on the fact that Dallin H. Oaks has nothing to do with the paragraph and it would be more appropriate to separate them into two distinct paragraphs. I propose to do so. GenoV84 (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No, you have not. You did not address the clear issues with POV that were pointed out. Removing that section from the criticism section is not in any way whatsoever censorship. The criticism section is specifically about criticism of Prosperity Theology. Opinionated assertions that the LDS Church is actually prosperity theology on steroids do not fall under that purview, as it's not criticizing prosperity theology, it's making a different assertion. What that assertion is is covered by the usage of the article in the "Comparisons with other movements" section. The only purpose of including its current usage in the criticism section, where it doesn't even fit, is to attempt to convince readers that Dallin H. Oaks' condemnation of Prosperity Theology was insincere and meant as a coverup. That breaks quite a few different rules. So, there is no reason to keep it in the criticism section, and I move that its usage in that section be removed entirely, with its usage in the "Comparisons with other movements" section kept as is. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Moreover, I have no problem with moving the paragraph to the "Comparisons with other movements" section, if other editors agree that it would be a more appropriate place for it, but removing the entire paragraph, which as I explained above is formed by quotes borrowed directly from the cited source, because you disagree with it and/or consider it an attack towards the LDS Church's official stance on prosperity theology... well, that's just an excuse to censorship and POV. As if that were not enough, another editor has already explained to you why the quotes borrowed from the cited source aren't even remotely qualifiable as libelous, so why are you so obsessed with removing it altogether? GenoV84 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No, not move that paragraph, remove it entirely. The section of the article previously used in the "Comparisons with other movements" section is more than adequate to explain the viewpoint without including some of the rule-breaking aspects found in that paragraph. Lindsay already explained how that section as quoted and used breaks the site's rules, and neither you nor tgeorgescu has adequately rebutted that or provided evidence for why it belongs other than you intentionally want readers to take away a specific conclusion, which is not permitted. You appear to be obsessed with including it for reasons that break Wiki rules, so unless you quickly come up with actual valid reasons that abide by the rules for keeping it, it will be permanently removed, as it does not qualify for inclusion under the site's criteria and you have been unable to provide proof that it does. It is not in any way censorship or POV to remover it, as the article is still linked and available to readers through the article. Removing it is no different than including parts of an opinion article directly in a Wiki page that mentions opinions, while omitting parts that try to present that opinion as fact and in a manner that breaks Wiki's Pov and making a point rules. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Nobody here follows your orders, buddy. If you want to collaborate with WP editors in order to engage in dispute resolution about a topic and reach shared consensus, you can't simply demand that someone removes something from an article that you may find offensive just because you feel triggered by it. That would be a POV violation, wouldn't it? I explained my opinion on this matter and proposed solutions through a process of compromise, but you keep refusing to listen and avoid to reach any agreement. The paragraph doesn't represent Wikipedia's opinion but the author's opinion, just as many other articles on this encyclopedia that quote opinions of authors, journalists, scholars, politicians, etc. The source is a reliable reference and there's no valid reason to remove it. Contrary to your claims, the paragraph is not presented as a fact but as the author's opinion; there are quotation marks for this reason. Plain and simple. GenoV84 (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup, criticism of a specific church isn't the same as libel. Wikipedia would be out of business if criticism of religion would be equated to libel. There is no rule against rendering the opinions of WP:RS, when taking WP:DUE into account. Wikipedia isn't a PR outlet, see WP:PROUD. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Nope, both of you are objectively, factually wrong according to Wiki's own rules. The section of the article currently under "Comparisons to other movements" breaks no rules as it clearly delineates what is opinion from what has evidence. The section that VGeno84 wants included does not do that, and is worded in a way that directly quoting it makes it appear as if Wiki is presenting that as its position. Both are criticism of a specific church, but the latter is libelous because of its misleading POV. The quotes are in fact presented as fact. Let's read them specifically. "However, Mormonism has an established tradition of entrepreneurship and, unlike adherents of most mainline Protestant denominations, Mormons have very little ambivalence about the acquisition of wealth." That's presented as established fact, not as an assertion or opinion. Additionally, the use of the word "report" in the sentence "A Harper's Magazine report on the relationship between the finances of the LDS Church and those of the Republican Party, asserted that LDS beliefs and practices were like the prosperity gospel and Protestant work ethic "on steroids." inherently gives the connotation that this is an evidence based report, not an editorialized opinion article. As such, including them in the manner you want to is objectively in violation of multiple Wiki rules. So if you would like to attempt to get those included in that manner, the onus is on you to go through conflict resolution on Wiki. Otherwise, by Wiki's own rules, those sentences must be absent from the article. That's what's plain and simple here. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You have no WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. If you seek to solve this issue, I suggest filling a report to WP:RSN (if Harper's is not reliable for the claim made) or WP:NPOVN (if citing Harper's is a violation of WP:DUE), or even try WP:DRN. Anyway, before you begin, please read WP:NOBIGOTS: the Wikipedia Community is rather harsh upon those who try to whitewash their own religion, and the Streisand effect may be involved. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow, you actually just debunked yourself. Genov84 has no consensus for his edits. In addition, the quotes have already been shown to violate DUE by attempting to present opinion as fact and evidence-based, which inherently changes the amount of weight a quote carries. You and Genov84 are both in violation of the No Bigots rule, as you both keep attempting to insert a section that violates other Wiki rules such as Due weight in order to give a specific unsupported impression of a church you dislike. If either of you would like to rewrite the paragraph in question to eliminate those rule violations, then you would be making an actual valid case for why it should be left in. As currently written and used in the article though, it indisputably violates multiple Wiki rules, and cannot be included as such, regardless of what your personal opinions or views are. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

If you WP:CRYLIBEL we don't automatically believe you. If you cry that we are violating WP:RULES we do not automatically believe you. You stated your case, WP:PRESERVE is of application, so the burden for removing the information is upon you. You should follow the suggested dispute resolution paths, just repeating yourself won't do. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't cry anything. I objectively and indisputably proved that it does violate multiple rules. I proved that one quote does in fact attempt to pass off an opinion as fact, and another violates due weight by attempting to pass off an editorialized opinion as evidence-based. Lindsay also showed how the wording of those sentences makes it appear as if Wiki is endorsing that opinion. Altogether, that far surpasses the burden of proof necessary for those sentences to be removed. As such, if you would like to attempt to get them included, it us up to you to start the conflict resolution progress. The onus is on you to take that path, not me, and in the meantime, those sentences must be absent from the article. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't believe you that you have objectively and indisputably proved anything. We're not fools. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you believe, I did in fact objectively prove it. It's no different than stating that 2+2=4 is objective fact. It is, and it's not disputable. The quotes in qestion did in fact misrepresnt opinion as fact and being evidence-based when it is actually editorialized opinion. So you are fools, and also outright liars, if you attempt to dispute that. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

A church you dislike... That sounds like a bad assumption about me and Tgeorgescu, and all the rest that you wrote sounds like outright trolling by repeating what we said to you like a parrot, it's the same song over and over. I have edited many articles about Mormonism and the LDS Church in the past, and I never meant to disrupt them nor to misrepresent Mormon doctrines. However, I'm fine with rewording the paragraph and adding more quotation marks to it, as long as it reflects what the article actually says. Otherwise, we probably will never reach a resolution. GenoV84 (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, insulting WP editors as you did qualifies as a violation of the Wikipedia policies on personal attacks, did you know that? GenoV84 (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You insulted others first, so you are the first one who is in violation of the wikipedia policies. But you already did know that. Also, the non-problematic portion of the article already accurately presents the article, why do you insist on this further portion that currently warps POV? The only possible reason is personal dislike of the church and desire to paint it a specific way. Otherwise, you wouldn't insist on it 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I have escalated it to WP:NPOVN. From WP:GOODBIAS: Saying that "Wikipedia is biased" or that "Wikipedia fails to follow its own neutral point of view rules" is not a set of magic words that will cause Wikipedia to accept your favorite conspiracy theory, urban myth, pseudoscience, alternative medicine or fringe theory. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• First: where did I insult you? Because warning templates are not insults.
• Second: do you agree with my proposal to reword the paragraph and add more quotation marks?
• Third: nobody here dislikes the LDS Church and nobody is trying to smear it, so stop assuming other people's thoughts and attitudes.
• Fourth: I insisted on the fact that Wikipedia is not censored and the cited source is reliable, hence there's no valid reason to remove the paragraph. GenoV84 (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the guy who stated Mormonism is the Protestant ethic on steroids is a cheerfully libertarian professor of economics and a faithful Mormon. So, IP's ire is towards one of their own. It seems like in-group fighting. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Holy cow! I'm going to have to learn to go without sleep if i want to keep up! May i make a couple of observations?

2601..., in fairness, you may have slightly clouded vision about this; it is extremely difficult to be fully aware of one's own heartfelt leanings and points of view and keep them out of one's writing (or speech).

In mine opinion, both GenoV84 and tgeorgescu were a bit harsh in assumptions at the beginning; indeed, i can easily understand why the IP feels attacked ~ the edits were certainly not vandalism, and to be told twice that they were was a poor welcome, and the UPE queries through a series of very serious sounding templates looks very daunting and, again, not welcoming. I think both could have handled the beginning of this better.

That being said, 2601..., it seems that both editors are now trying to discuss with you, and you are allowing your emotions to gain the better of you, which is a very poor habit when editing. May i suggest, take a break (a day, not a forever break), and come back to this with a clear head, make your arguments simply and obviously, and see if you are able to change the consensus here. Because the discussion as is, isn't going to help anyone ~ either "side". Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 05:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@LindsayH: Let me translate from English to English: the whole point of IP's edits is to show that Mark Skousen is a heretic and a slanderer of the LDS Church. It is a smear campaign, if we are to call a spade a spade. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

So, what is wrong with my reasoning? Mark Skousen stated that "Mormonism is the Protestant ethic on steroids". The IP stated that rendering such view is purposefully smearing the LDS Church. But of course, the smear argument breaks down when we understand that Skousen is a faithful Mormon. That's why the IP had to claim that Skousen is not a faithful Mormon. If they did not say that, they would have admitted they are wrong. So, it boils down to: according to the IP Skousen is a heretic and an slanderer of the LDS Church. So, in order to claim that we smear the LDS Church, the IP had to smear Skousen. If there is any flaw in my reasoning, please point it out.

Their argument is that by juxtaposing the public declarations of two notable, faithful members of the LDS Church we are smearing the LDS Church. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

From my reading of this thread, that is a very accurate summary. IP should move on from this dispute. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 16:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That reading is incorrect, as tgeorgescu was told to stop by admins on the admin noticeboard and also had at least part of their assertions rebuffed by another user on the NPOV noticeboard. The admins also warned GenoV84. I had been waiting for that stuff to be resolved before continuing here. Now that it has been mostly settled, we can continue here.

Here's the input from the only editor on the NPOV noticeboard that wasn't tgeorgescu, GenoV84, or me: "I'm not sure about either editor's position here. The content shouldn't be in the "criticism" section it is currently at on the page, and it seems strange to use a Harper's article that says None of the prosperity gospel’s proponents are themselves Mormon. to claim a tie between Mormonism and prosperity gospel. Yet discussion of where Mormon philosophies (and the Protestant work ethic more generally) are similar to prosperity gospel should be somewhere in the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)" I'm not including any of the specific lines from the admin noticeboard yet, because I don't know yet whether that's allowed by anyone other than an admin. One admin already did remove the Skousen quote themselves from the article.

So here's the portion that's still in the criticism section: "in comparison to most other Protestant denominations, Mormonism has an established tradition of entrepreneurship and less ambivalence about the pursuit of wealth.[98] A Harper's Magazine report on the relationship between the finances of the LDS Church and those of the Republican Party compared LDS beliefs and practices to the prosperity gospel.[98]" For comparison, here's what's currently in the "Comparisons with other movements" section of the article: "Observers have proposed that some doctrines and beliefs found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) are reminiscent of prosperity theology,[78] such as a similar interpretation of Malachi 3:10 found among LDS members as among Protestant prosperity theology and LDS lesson manuals teaching a "prosperity cycle" that shows material wealth follows from obedience to God.[79]" The Harper's magazine article is already linked in that section. That section certainly appears to me to meet what 力 said on the NPOV board, that "discussion of where Mormon philosophies (and the Protestant work ethic more generally) are similar to prosperity gospel should be somewhere in the article." There has been widespread support for removing the disputed section from the "Criticism" section of the article so far, the main question is whether to move it to the "Comparisons with other movements" section of the article or leave it out altogether. I personally still see no reason to add it to the portion already in the "Comparisons with other movements" section of the article, as the first line still has NPOV issues and the second line merely rehashes what is already in the "Comparisons with other movements" section. If a majority of other editors do insist on some or all of that disputed section being included up in the "comparisons with other movements section, those issues would need to be addressed.2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)