Wikipedia turning Anti-Mormon?

[_jstayii]

If there are confirmable facts related to the 1838 version of the account, then by all means submit it. The issue that stands is that all the information provided is factual and does not (imho) skew things for or against. The problem arrises when TBM's like yourself feel threatened by the outside information which conflicts what you want people to hear. When factual information is suppressed, that's what we have called "whitewashing". Just because something was noted as the "official" account, doesn't mean that's what happened. I would rather have all the information presented around me and to then make my decision on things.

by the way, what is a TBM?

[_Mister Scratch]

Wait a sec... I believe I am still confused.... You say, "Joseph Smith was still preaching the exact same things as the 1838 account." Why would he preach any differently? The Wiki article deals with variances in the account (including Joseph Smith's own) which predate the 1838 account.... The bottom (truthful) line is that there are a lot of variations and discrepancies in the accounting of the First Vision. That is the truth, plain and simple. Why does this seem "anti-Mormon" to you?

You may see it that way, but I don't think a non-Mormon will.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are trying to finagle the information so that readers will come to one particular conclusion.... Is that correct? Or would you prefer that readers be given the facts so that they can make their own determination?

I think it's important to explicitely note that while there were multiple variations in the account of the First Vision, there are other accounts saying that Joseph had the same testimony and gave the same account to others in 1832, as he did in 1838, showing those accounts that pre-dated the 1838 account were just recollections, and not the full story of what happened.

"Just recollections"? That does not make any sense at all. The 1838 account is itself a recollection, and it is a more distant recollection to boot!

We need to show that the 1838 account *is* the most complete account

To my knowledge, no one has ever established this....

- there is plenty of facts out there to support this,

I would be interested in seeing these facts.

and these facts are not always mentioned when people criticize the Mormon church. What is in that wikipedia article is exactly the half-truth that evangelicals and others give in anti-mormon literature, such as the DVD that just came out.

Is this really any different from missionaries telling investigators that Joseph Smith "saw Heavenly Father" while omitting the parts about the varying accounts/recollections?

by the way: "TBM" is an acronym for (depending on who's using it): "True Blue Mormon", "True Believing Mormon", or "Truly Brainwashed Mormon." It is used to describe someone who adheres rigidly to LDS orthodoxy

[_jstayii]

Mr. Scratch, I'm confused as to whom I'm talking to here. Are you a Mormon, or non? I quoted a fairwiki article above that shows way more citations than that wikipedia article shows, which shows evidence that the 1838 recollection is still just as accurate as that in 1832. I suggest you read it. For the third or fourth time, I'm not suggesting removing anything, but rather making sure the entire truth is there - there are many more recollections and witnesses out there which support the 1838 recollection as being *the* correct testimony of Joseph Smith - those witnesses are not shown in the wikipedia article. I'm starting to get confused. I've never been on this board before - is this a Mormon discussion board, or anti-Mormon discussion board? Any idea where I can go to talk to Mormons? I seem to be getting attacked for trying to get the full factual and cited truth (no, not just Mormon opinion) out there.

[_Mister Scratch]

Mr. Scratch, I'm confused as to whom I'm talking to here. Are you a Mormon, or non? I quoted a fairwiki article above that shows way more citations than that wikipedia article shows, which shows evidence that the 1838 recollection is still just as accurate as that in 1832. I suggest you read it.

I did read it. I was not impressed. In fact, I think it is a stretch to label it an "article" at all. It is really just a list of links to other articles written by FAIR/FARMS---and you need to be advised that stuff coming out of those organizations does not receive legit peer review, and in fact does not even receive the kind of balanced review that Wikipedia articles are subjected to. In other words, you need to be extremely careful about relying on FAIR for good, credible information.

For the third or fourth time, I'm not suggesting removing anything, but rather making sure the entire truth is there - there are many more recollections and witnesses out there which support the 1838 recollection as being *the* correct testimony of Joseph Smith - those witnesses are not shown in the wikipedia article.

It is quite clear to me that you are not suggesting removing anything. Instead, it seems that you are advising the addition of material which will "stack the deck" in the Church's favor, as it were.

I'm starting to get confused. I've never been on this board before - is this a Mormon discussion board, or anti-Mormon discussion board? Any idea where I can go to talk to Mormons? I seem to be getting attacked for trying to get the full factual and cited truth (no, not just Mormon opinion) out there.

The "factual truth" is that there are variations in the accounts of the First Vision. Anything else is little more than apologetic bloviation, my friend.

[_alex71va]

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 don't think that Wikipedia is anti-Mormon or anti-anything. They try to make things balanced. If you have information that refutes anything on a Wikipedia page then I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _and_abuse to get resolution.

[_gramps]

Mr. Scratch, I'm confused as to whom I'm talking to here. Are you a Mormon, or non? I quoted a fairwiki article above that shows way more citations than that wikipedia article shows, which shows evidence that the 1838 recollection is still just as accurate as that in 1832. I suggest you read it. For the third or fourth time, I'm not suggesting removing anything, but rather making sure the entire truth is there - there are many more recollections and witnesses out there which support the 1838 recollection as being *the* correct testimony of Joseph Smith - those witnesses are not shown in the wikipedia article. I'm starting to get confused. I've never been on this board before - is this a Mormon discussion board, or anti-Mormon discussion board? Any idea where I can go to talk to Mormons? I seem to be getting attacked for trying to get the full factual and cited truth (no, not just Mormon opinion) out there.

Hi jstayii.

There are TBMs on this board, as well as, the rest of "the full rainbow." I'm sure you can find, but with only a little time spent on the web, a board that you would be pleased with.

You have yet to put up any specific information, from either wicki, that you would like to discuss. Why don't you try that?

Of course, if you want to hang out with those who believe just what you do, you might want to try out mormonapologetics.org. Lots of those people involved with that board are also involved with FAIR(?). This is a Mormon discussion board and you will get with that discussion all kinds of viewpoints. Is that something with which you would be uncomfortable?

[_Mephitus]

Tell me if im wrong on this, but your argument is that you want posted on the wiki *only* the "official" account that the church puts out rather than the complete working of history as has been recorded and written down. Please clarify this a bit for me if you can.

Also, if you bring the specific issues on the wiki you want addressed, and post them here. There are several people here who have quite a bit of information.

[_gramps]

It appears jstayii has found his place over on the mad-board in the friendship forum:

I tried posting this on mormondiscussions.com, and quickly came to realize I was not among friends there, as only anti-mormons replied arguing against my stance. I was recently pointed here so I'll try the discussion here, hopefully among friends.

Anyway, I've noticed lately that wikipedia has seemed to turn a bit anti-mormon lately. If you go to "Accounts of the First Vision" under the topic First Vision on wikipedia, it makes a blatent attempt to point out that because there are multiple accounts of the first vision, that the 1838 account cannot be the most correct one. After reading the excerpts on Fair Wiki, I know there are many other witnesses and accounts confirming that the 1838 account is still accurate, most from original sources. The wikipedia article seems to ignore this, and leaves one slanted view of the story.

I was also reading up lately on "Arianism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#. ... al_epithet) and I was noticing they have Mormons listed under the list of religions who reflect some of the teachings of Arius. I know for a fact we do not support those beliefs in any way of Arius, as Arius believed Christ was created out of nothing, not "begotten" as we and most other Christian faiths do. I figure so long as we're on there, so should every other Christian faith that sees him as a heretic be on there as well.

So I tried to remove it, and even left citations (see http://www.geocities.com/essays12/UScreeds.pdf for an *excellent* summary of Arianism and early Christian creeds, and why we do *not* want to be supporting Arius), and the next day, the same entry about Mormons showed up, with no citation or backup as to why.

I was wondering what others experience was on working to clean up wikipedia. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting removing the citations already there - I'm just suggesting ensuring the full truth was in these articles where only partial truths are presented. These things are littered all over wikipedia and I'm sure as a large group we can find some way to make sure our view is made known.

It's good he found a home among friends.

[_Mephitus]

what did we do? all we did was ask for specific citations on where the issues where. we where civil, polite, and did the best we could do to give information on the subject....and all he does is say he wasent welcome....huh...

[_Some Schmo]

It appears jstayii has found his place over on the mad-board in the friendship forum:

...

It's good he found a home among friends.

If, by friends, you mean "people who will agree with him" then yeah.

I wouldn't consider my friends friends if they always agreed with me though. I guess some people so believe they are what they think that they feel invalidated if people disagree with them.