Wikipedia turning Anti-Mormon?

Post by **_jstayii** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:42 am

I was just looking at the Joseph Smith Vision topic on Wikipedia. It seems it has turned avidly Anti-Mormon lately, listing multiple accounts as though it almost seems to try to prove he didn't see God. I've also noticed on the "Arianism" topic, it has Mormons listed as supporting Arianism - this is absolutely NOT true, if you study what Arian truly was teaching. I've tried changing the latter, but it just gets changed back - I've even tried leaving supporting evidence, but it just gets changed back. I also can't help but wonder how many other wikipedia articles have been filled with misunderstandings and half-truths by our opponents. Does anyone know how we as Mormons can make an influence on wikipedia's Mormon-related topics to ensure accurate information is there? I really like the way fairwiki.org has done it - they're not afraid to list the opposing views, but they give supporting evidence as to why those views don't make sense. Doing it in that way puts everything in plain view for the whole world to see, not just one side's point of view. Anyone know how we can have a weight on this?

Post by **_Mephitus** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:21 am

um....i just did a quick rundown on it all. and it seems pretty up to date with both sides of the information to me.

If you think there are inconsistoncies, please cite the specific places you think there are problems. They can be submitted to change the article pretty easily.

Post by **_gramps** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:34 am

jstayii wrote:I was just looking at the Joseph Smith Vision topic on Wikipedia. It seems it has turned avidly Anti-Mormon lately, listing multiple accounts as though it almost seems to try to prove he didn't see God. I've also noticed on the "Arianism" topic, it has Mormons listed as supporting Arianism - this is absolutely NOT true, if you study what Arian truly was teaching. I've tried changing the latter, but it just gets changed back - I've even tried leaving supporting evidence, but it just gets changed back. I also can't help but wonder how many other wikipedia articles have been filled with misunderstandings and half-truths by our opponents. Does anyone know how we as Mormons can make an influence on wikipedia's Mormon-related topics to ensure accurate information is there? I really like the way fairwiki.org has done it - they're not afraid to list the opposing views, but they give supporting evidence as to why those views don't make sense. Doing it in that way puts everything in plain view for the whole world to see, not just one side's point of view. Anyone know how we can have a weight on this?

I agree with sono_hito. I can't find anything "avidly Anti-Mormon" on the page, but, I admit I read through it rather quickly. Post up what you see as anti-mormon, avid or not, and let's discuss it. Sounds fun.

Don't know much about Arianism, so can't comment on that.

Post by **_Mephitus** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:17 am

Yeah, wikipedia is purely for all information available. Its not designed to anylise the information, merely to provide it.

If you are talking "aryanism" (the idea that the white race (specificaly those of germanic descent) is superior) im mildly familiar on that topic. i didn't notice anything on there. I would look through it more thoroughly, but im at work and need to go do a few things. So i don't have time atm.

Post by **_Fortigurn** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:10 am

Sono_hito wrote:If you are talking "aryanism" (the idea that the white race (specificaly those of germanic descent) is superior) I'm mildly familiar on that topic. I didn't notice anything on there. I would look through it more thoroughly, but I'm at work and need to go do a few things. So I don't have time atm.

No, he's talking about 'Arianism', the Christological view of the 2nd-3rd century Christian theologian Arius.

Post by **_Mephitus** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:41 am

Thank you for clearing that up. I had not heard of that term before. Think you could link me a few good places to read up?

Post by **_Fortigurn** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:48 am

Where else?

Post by **_Pokatator** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:24 am

Fortigurn wrote:Where else?

That article seems accurate to what I was taught.

For jstayii:

Now tying that to Mormonism, well the Mormon theology is so all over the board that you can almost tie it to anything. It has to come from the God was once a man, man can become a God, with Jesus somewhere in there. The Mormon theology is confusing and really anything you want it to be, just find a reference that fits what you want.

Post by **_Mephitus** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:45 am

Fortigurn wrote:Where else?

heh, should have looked there. Thanks, interesting stuff.

Post by **_jstayii** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:29 pm

I'm referring mostly to the Accounts of the First Vision. While many of those are accurately cited quotes, there is much more to the story. I think if someone is to try and make a point (which is the impression I'm getting from it) that Joseph Smith did not always say he saw 2 personages, and that he mixed up his details and the dates weren't always the same, they should also note all the other evidences that what Joseph's 1838 Account says could still be accurate. It does not seem to state anything like that on there, and leads you thinking the Prophet was wrong. That was at least my impression.

Yes, I am referring to the former Priest, Arius, who basically said God was not created or made - it is actually the basis for many of the early Christian creeds. If Mormons were to support Arius we could not believe in an Eternal God.

DiscussMormonism.com

Wikipedia turning Anti-Mormon?

Wikipedia turning Anti-Mormon?

Re: Wikipedia turning Anti-Mormon?