Mormon Entry

[Brimshack]

I was just reading the Mormon entry and wondering if it's really appropriate to lead that entry with a matter of a fact statement describing them as non-Christian. I realize that there are many in mainstream Christianity that do in fact regard that as an established fact. There are, however, quite a few Mormons (just about all of them, I reckon) that would beg to differ. It seems very inappropriate to use an informative article as a means of driving home a polemic argument.

I can definitely including information to the effect that many Christians do not regard them as Christian, but I think a more objective account of the different claims would be more appropriate than a simple factual statement to the effect that the LDS Church is a pseudo-Christian cult. It is also misleading to say that Christians consider them a pseudo-Christian cult as that implies that all Christians believe them to be outside the fold, so to speak. It may be that many Christians do, that key Christian leaders do, or even that maybe they all ought to, but the current categorical language is simply false.

And I think you guys ought to really have a discussion about the goals behind this Wiki. If the intent is to slam those outside the fold, this is 2 articles so far that have done that right out of the gate. Of course you can editand re-edit, but perhaps y'all ought to talk about what you want to accomplish with these articles to begin with. There is a time and a place for arguing polemic disputes. But when covering a controversy in an informative article, I think the honest thing to do is aknowledge the difference of opinion rather than presenting it as a settled fact. As it stands, the current text of the Mormon article doesn't display much of an effort in this regard.

If these articles are to present as matters of fact the inherent superiority of mainstream Christianity over the rest of us, then this is going to do a lot to increase the snideness and anger around here. Just like the Atheist entry, I think you guys can do a lot better than this.

[Brimshack]

I also think it's poor form to lead an informative article with a criticism. Why not start with a more straight foreword account of Mormonism. You can discuss the controversy with mainline churches down the page a bit. But shouldn't people learn about what Mormonism is first before they learn what many other Christians don't like about it?

[Avatar]

Right you are. The wiki project is in its infancy and submitted articles will be edited and polished. At the moment wiki articles are the work of individual submitters. There is no panel an article must pass through before being posted. As such some articles will appear that are not in keeping with our stated goal of simple objective information. I don't know if the one you reference is among these, I haven't yet read it. I'm also not qualified to edit an article on Mormonism since I know little of that faith. But others on the team are, and the article will eventually reflect a balanced and objective explanation of Mormonism.


Objectivity is a stated aim of this project, and as it evolves I believe we will acheive it.

Remember, this is a work in progress, and is in its very early stages. :)

[Brimshack]

No problem Avatar. I don't mean to slam anyone either. My suggestion is simply that I think quite a few of the articles are rather polemic in nature (some explicitly so, and some merely expressing it as bias). Hopefully everything can be corrected, but it might be worth talking a bit to see what people have in mind and what they are trying to accomplish in these.

Techniques for controlling bias and alternative ways of presenting material might also be worth discussing.

[Lel]

I was just reading the Mormon entry and wondering if it's really appropriate to lead that entry with a matter of a fact statement describing them as non-Christian. I realize that there are many in mainstream Christianity that do in fact regard that as an established fact. There are, however, quite a few Mormons (just about all of them, I reckon) that would beg to differ. It seems very inappropriate to use an informative article as a means of driving home a polemic argument.

I can definitely including information to the effect that many Christians do not regard them as Christian, but I think a more objective account of the different claims would be more appropriate than a simple factual statement to the effect that the LDS Church is a pseudo-Christian cult. It is also misleading to say that Christians consider them a pseudo-Christian cult as that implies that all Christians believe them to be outside the fold, so to speak. It may be that many Christians do, that key Christian leaders do, or even that maybe they all ought to, but the current categorical language is simply false.

And I think you guys ought to really have a discussion about the goals behind this Wiki. If the intent is to slam those outside the fold, this is 2 articles so far that have done that right out of the gate. Of course you can editand re-edit, but perhaps y'all ought to talk about what you want to accomplish with these articles to begin with. There is a time and a place for arguing polemic disputes. But when covering a controversy in an informative article, I think the honest thing to do is aknowledge the difference of opinion rather than presenting it as a settled fact. As it stands, the current text of the Mormon article doesn't display much of an effort in this regard.

If these articles are to present as matters of fact the inherent superiority of mainstream Christianity over the rest of us, then this is going to do a lot to increase the snideness and anger around here. Just like the Atheist entry, I think you guys can do a lot better than this.

As you might note, Brimshack, I quite strongly agree with your conclusions and am doing some editing to reflect this. The wiki is supposed to be NPOV and while I'm sure there's controversy about how NPOV the wiki needs to be, I'm doing some editing of things even describing non-Christian areas to try to reflect a more NPOV.

I haven't done much with regards to expanding controversies as much as changing a statement from a polemic to an acknowledged controversy. Right now, with it being a fledgling Wiki, we're really trying to just get things up and edit them as time permits. Being more of an editor type than a creative type, I'm doing some going through articles and looking for ways to present a slightly more NPOV, but granted, I'm not spending oodles of time on this yet.

I'll see what I can do about outlining controversies a little more clearly later on today. Thanks for the heads up!

[Amazingdave]

As you might note, Brimshack, I quite strongly agree with your conclusions and am doing some editing to reflect this. The wiki is supposed to be NPOV and while I'm sure there's controversy about how NPOV the wiki needs to be, I'm doing some editing of things even describing non-Christian areas to try to reflect a more NPOV.

I haven't done much with regards to expanding controversies as much as changing a statement from a polemic to an acknowledged controversy. Right now, with it being a fledgling Wiki, we're really trying to just get things up and edit them as time permits. Being more of an editor type than a creative type, I'm doing some going through articles and looking for ways to present a slightly more NPOV, but granted, I'm not spending oodles of time on this yet.

I'll see what I can do about outlining controversies a little more clearly later on today. Thanks for the heads up!I appreciate the objective viewpoint you are taking with my faith. God bless:thumbsup:

[Graeystone]

Simple way of figuring out if Mormonism or any other group is 'legit' or not. Compare their core doctrine to what the Bible has to say then you'll have your answers.

[Amazingdave]

Simple way of figuring out if Mormonism or any other group is 'legit' or not. Compare their core doctrine to what the Bible has to say then you'll have your answers.Well if you need more information PM me as I could not post the information on this thread. Cheers.:cool:

[ScottBot]

I also think it's poor form to lead an informative article with a criticism. Why not start with a more straight foreword account of Mormonism. You can discuss the controversy with mainline churches down the page a bit. But shouldn't people learn about what Mormonism is first before they learn what many other Christians don't like about it?
Lets not forget however, that this is not just a standard objective, informative Wiki, but rather a Wiki as it relates to Christianity. Since the CF definition of a Christian is someone who submits to the letter of the Nicene Creed, the Mormons do not do that, therefore deligitimizing their claim on the Christian title. Same thing goes with Jehovah's Witnesses. Within their own limited context, THEY are the true Christians and everyone outside of them is apostate. However, this Wiki's guiding paradigm is the Nicene Creed. It is the polemic around which everything else at CF revolves.

[ScottBot]

Simple way of figuring out if Mormonism or any other group is 'legit' or not. Compare their core doctrine to what the Bible has to say then you'll have your answers.
Compare it to the Nicene Creed and it falls flat.

[Solent]

Can Wiki give info about non-Christian religions, like the Jews or the Muslims, or is it specifically ONLY about Christian and pseudo-Christian faiths?

[ScottBot]

Can Wiki give info about non-Christian religions, like the Jews or the Muslims, or is it specifically ONLY about Christian and pseudo-Christian faiths?
I think that the CF Wiki can give any religious information that is relevant, but from the perspective of Nicene Christianity. I don't think it appropriate to represent Islam as the one true religion, when the crux of this site is to promote Christianity as the one true religion. You can have 2 different and completing "One True Religions".

[Solent]

I think that the CF Wiki can give any religious information that is relevant, but from the perspective of Nicene Christianity. I don't think it appropriate to represent Islam as the one true religion, when the crux of this site is to promote Christianity as the one true religion. You can have 2 different and completing "One True Religions".

But could you have an entry about the history and main beliefs of Islam from an informative perspective only, and possibly then highliting where they differ from Christianity and why some of their beliefs cannot be accepted by Christians, as you did for the Mormons?
Personally I think that a clearer view of Islam is badly needed these days, when so many false claims are made by all sides.

[ScottBot]

But could you have an entry about the history and main beliefs of Islam from an informative perspective only, and possibly then highliting where they differ from Christianity and why some of their beliefs cannot be accepted by Christians, as you did for the Mormons?
Personally I think that a clearer view of Islam is badly needed these days, where so many false claims are made by all sides.
I'm sure that is acceptable. I myself am tryingt o add an entry for Rationalism in the Apologetics section, but it isn't allowing me.

[Solent]

If anybody wanted to look into it, I could provide the link to a very good site to draw material from.
I won't post it, but I can PM it to whoever is "in charge".

[Atlantians]

The Nicean Creed has its faults however.
More then that should be the clasification.

[Orontes]

Since the CF definition of a Christian is someone who submits to the letter of the Nicene Creed, the Mormons do not do that, therefore deligitimizing their claim on the Christian title.

This of course begs the question.

[Orontes]

I was just reading the Mormon entry and wondering if it's really appropriate to lead that entry with a matter of a fact statement describing them as non-Christian.

The CF "Wiki(s)" on Mormonism were originally put forward by an admitted anti-Mormon. They are agenda ridden and cover Mormonism as closely as a devout Catholic might feel "The Da Vinci Code" does Catholic teaching.

Part of this reflects back on CF as it places Mormonism in the Apologetics Section suggesting an adversarial relationship, draws arbitrary lines on who constitutes a Christian with the purpose of exclusion rather than inclusion and generally turns a blind eye to an environment of hostility: any few days on the Unothrodox Theology Fourms will demonstrate the almost institutional invective. All of this is unfortunate. Not everything is dark however, as Mormons are now allowed to post in at least one wiki on their faith and begin some correction and thereby actually allow the wiki to be want it claims.

[Zippythepinhead]

The CF "Wiki(s)" on Mormonism were originally put forward by an admitted anti-Mormon. They are agenda ridden and cover Mormonism as closely as a devout Catholic might feel "The Da Vinci Code" does Catholic teaching.

Part of this reflects back on CF as it places Mormonism in the Apologetics Section suggesting an adversarial relationship, draws arbitrary lines on who constitutes a Christian with the purpose of exclusion rather than inclusion and generally turns a blind eye to an environment of hostility: any few days on the Unothrodox Theology Fourms will demonstrate the almost institutional invective. All of this is unfortunate. Not everything is dark however, as Mormons are now allowed to post in at least one wiki on their faith and begin some correction and thereby actually allow the wiki to be want it claims.I agree! I think that there needs to be more objective study of the LDS faith than just allowing those who oppose the teachings to do so unchallenged. As I have been here on CF I have attempted to challenge hostile people toward my faith. Usually it seems that I ended up on the warning end. Objectivity is not an endorsement of anyones faith, but niether is a condemnation. It is an objective look at the facts. I believe that greater understanding is taking place between LDS and other Christian faiths. But hostility never made anyone feel good.:)

[Blackmarch]

Hmm new here, but in regards to the OP maybe opening statements many of the wiki articles could be drawn from authoritative sources that tend to have more neutrality (IE such as the Encyclopedia britannica) which then further explanation could continue perhaps in a manner similar to this:

Mormons claim that.... blah blah blah.
And they use this source ... to show why or how.

However their critics claim that.... blah blah blah
And they use this source ... to show why or how.

and be sure to credit whatever important group or person thats related to the information


anyways just a couple cents of an idea.