Wikipedia turning Anti-Mormon?

[_jstayii]

fairwiki.org countered the claims on wikipedia really well here: http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/First_Vision_accounts.

For some good information on Arianism, see: http://www.geocities.com/essays12/UScreeds.pdf - I love this article, by the way.

[_moksha]

Would it not be a disservice to non-adherent readers of the Wikipedia to only have faith-promoting materials available to them? For instance, can you not imagine that there may be more to the Scientology story than the faithful followers of Scientology would admit to?

Arius (AD ca 250/256 - 336, of Alexandria) was an early Christian theologian, who taught that the Son of God was not eternal, and was subordinate to God the Father (a view known generally as Arianism). How would this be out of whack with LDS theology? Do we believe that Jesus was created by his Father or not?

[_jstayii]

Would it not be a disservice to non-adherent readers of the Wikipedia to only have faith-promoting materials available to them? For instance, can you not imagine that there may be more to the Scientology story than the faithful followers of Scientology would admit to?

Arius (AD ca 250/256 - 336, of Alexandria) was an early Christian theologian, who taught that the Son of God was not eternal, and was subordinate to God the Father (a view known generally as Arianism). How would this be out of whack with LDS theology? Do we believe that Jesus was created by his Father or not?

I suggest you read the pdf I linked to. It explains well. I do not believe we want to be associating ourselves in any way with Arius - it is not what we believe. Arius's teachings are more than what the wikipedia article shows. Arius taught that the Son of God was not Created, not eternal, and was "subordinate to the Father". We believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one. True, Christ was begotten of the Father, but Arius taught the Son was created out of nothing, "create". Arius also taught the Savior was not eternal - he was created out of nothing, and was "changeable". Arius's teachings deprive Christ of His divinity. Arius and his followers are the entire reason for many of the controversies causing the need for the Nicene Creed, Caesarean Creed, Constantinopolitan Creed, and others. Were Arius to be out of whack with LDS theology, Catholics may as well be on that list as well, as they believe almost the same things we do, with less clarity, and minus our belief of God the Father and Christ having a body (again, the article there helps clarify that as well).

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

I'm a bit confused as to why you view this factual information as "anti-Mormon," jstay.... After all, LDS want the truth, right? Would you consider exclusion of the varying dates to be a kind of "whitewashing"?

[_jstayii]

I'm a bit confused as to why you view this factual information as "anti-Mormon," jstay.... After all, LDS want the truth, right? Would you consider exclusion of the varying dates to be a kind of "whitewashing"?

I'm not suggesting removing it. I'm suggesting adding the full truth - that there were multiple other testimonies from the same times that said Joseph Smith was still preaching the exact same things as the 1838 account. The accounts there, without the full truth make it sound like Joseph didn't see God the Father and Jesus Christ, and that he only added that account later on in his life. That's not true, and we have many evidences that support that.

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm a bit confused as to why you view this factual information as "anti-Mormon," jstay.... After all, LDS want the truth, right? Would you consider exclusion of the varying dates to be a kind of "whitewashing"?

I'm not suggesting removing it. I'm suggesting adding the full truth - that there were multiple other testimonies from the same times that said Joseph Smith was still preaching the exact same things as the 1838 account.

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?

The accounts there, without the full truth make it sound like Joseph didn't see God the Father and Jesus Christ, and that he only added that account later on in his life.

I didn't get that impression at all. It merely "make[s] it sound" like Joseph Smith and others had difficulty pinning down the precise date.... People are forgetful, you know?

[_jstayii]

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. 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. We need to show that the 1838 account *is* the most complete account - there is plenty of facts out there to support this, 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.

[_Mephitus]

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.

I don't want you to think this a cheap-shot, im going to use something that merely makes a good comparison.

There are people here (i mean in the world, not on this forum) that believe that the holocaust did NOT happen. They would like that the information that shows that it DID happen not to be shown (because they claim it missleading) and to only show the "facts" that it never happened. I would still rather have both sides of the argument on the same table with all information gathered in a single unbiased location so that i can examine it and make my own decision.

[_aussieguy55]

Here is an interesting video clip on the founder

http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/fea ... e_2167.asp

[_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.

I don't want you to think this a cheap-shot, I'm going to use something that merely makes a good comparison.

There are people here (I mean in the world, not on this forum) that believe that the holocaust did NOT happen. They would like that the information that shows that it DID happen not to be shown (because they claim it missleading) and to only show the "facts" that it never happened. I would still rather have both sides of the argument on the same table with all information gathered in a single unbiased location so that I can examine it and make my own decision.

I don't think I've ever mentioned taking anything off (except the Arianism one - that is *not* factual, and in fact *very* inaccurate). In fact I've stated to the contrary. I'm simply saying the information lying there is only part of the truth. For some reason a small group of non-Mormons think we want to hide information about our church. We have no reason to. It seems some of those outside our church want to hide information about it though, as there never is the full truth about these stories listed when they're trying to "teach" us about our Church.