While doing a Google search I came across an entry in MormonWiki. I didn’t know anything about MormonWiki so I decided to take a look. It appears MormonWiki is an Evangelical online Mormon Encyclopedia. It appears to be reasonably informative on some things, but is obviously not trying to be flattering about the church. For those more familiar with MormonWiki, where does it fit on the anti-Mormon scale? 1 being not anti at all, 10 being very anti?
As I looked around MormonWiki I noticed that there are a lot of LDS blogs and bloggers used as references and sources. How big of a concern should this be?
I searched around a little more, and found out that I was used twice as references in MormonWiki. This disturbs me a little bit. Should it?
I was referenced as saying that I just enjoy the content of the Book of Abraham, and don’t worry about it’s history very much. This was used as an example of apathy and an atheological attitude among Mormons. Great. I was then referenced for my belief in being a literal child of God, and my speculations on some of the implications.
So I am wondering what to do or feel about blogging, and the fact that many of us are being referenced in an online Evangelical Encyclopedia about Mormonism.
Eric Nielson
Small and Simple 
It belongs to Aaron Shafolavoff, and in my experience, they edit out any contributions made by actual LDS. That alone, in my view, ranks it high as an anti-Mormon source since we are not allowed to present our own views.
There’s also a mormonwiki.com, which should not be confused with mormonwiki.org
mormonwiki.org is put up by an evangelical group, and mormonwiki.com is by the More Good Foundation.
The two sites seem represent the two opposite poles of Mormon ideology.
Anon:
Thanks for the info. Knowing who is behind it makes some sense. Aaron is a card carrying member of the fluffy bunny nice nice club right?
KC:
Thanks for this. I had not realized I was on MormonWiki.org. I will try to keep this straight.
KC’s comment is correct. Oh the difference three letters make.
Yes indeed. And boy does he love Mormons. You can find pictures of him protesting/”witnessing” at General Conference if you google.
Aaron is a card carrying member of the fluffy bunny nice nice club right?
Right. And his wiki has entirely fluffy bunny nice nice club material (aka anti-Mormonism) as well.
Very. 🙂 Increasingly easy access to documentation over controversial issues is turning a lot of Mormons into non-Mormons. Also, it’s important for people to see that other Mormons admit to problems (like Adam-God) with Mormon history. That’s something you’ll get in the Bloggernacle that you won’t get in a CES manual or PR face.
My hope is that people would leave Mormonism and receive by faith the free and immediate gift of justification and forgiveness of sins and secured eternal life in the presence of the Father because of the worthiness of Christ.
Unfortunately, I rarely update the wiki. Hopefully over time its content will increase in depth and quality.
In Him who justifies the ungodly by faith (Romans 4:4-8),
Aaron
Of course, you don’t have to leave Mormonism to do that. Eyeroll.
This was used as an example of apathy and an atheological attitude among Mormons. Great.
What can I say, fame sucks. Famous people have been warning us for a long time, but we just wouldn’t listen.
Like any other anti-mormon website, it’s a concern, but the hope is honest people seeking the truth will recognize truth from error. The Lord is preparing people to receive the gospel, and he won’t let a website like this forever stop a person’s eternal progress.
Geoff:
I decided to do a little search at the MW org, and you were used as a source four times. Does this bother you at all? This is new ground for me, and I am wondering how bummed to be about it.
Aaron:
There have to be higher quality sources that private small time blogs.
JacobJ:
What can I say, fame sucks. Famous people have been warning us for a long time, but we just wouldn’t listen.
Huh? Who are you saying is famous? Who has been giving warnings? What warnings? Who is not listening? Whither the fries?
David:
I guess I am more concerned about blogging, and my indirect contributions as evidence on an anti site. Blech.
Eric,
I am sited on that site for a post I did here as well, talking about the innactives in the church. It doesn’t really bother me. I don’t say anything on these blogs that I would consider as faith destroying. I believe in Christ and his Gospel as laid out in the scriptures, to the best of my understanding, and I believe anyone interested in reading something like mormon wiki who has concerns would check the source material.
Thanks Matt. This is a good perspective I think. When I think of all the people that have been sited in anti literature ….. I wonder what they thought. (BRM as an example).
Eric,
Why should you or I be concerned that we get cited as examples of Mormon thoughts/opinions? It’s not like we were isquoted after all. Did you notice all the modern prophets and apostles he cited as well? That’s pretty good company as far as I’m concerned.
BTW — Jacob’s comment was a tongue-in-cheek. He was referring to you as the famous one (due to your getting quoted)
Geoff:
You said very close to what I am starting to think. This whole thing caught me off guard.
I am still a little baffled as to why Aaron is quoting so many blogs. Surely there are better sources for him to use.
Hi Eric,
I don’t think that you should be too worried about this. After all, what makes that site malicious is not what you said, or the fact that they are quoting it. It’s their agenda.
Your thoughts about your own religion = sincere and blameless
Twisting another person’s thoughts about their own religion to fit into a basically dishonest template= anti-Mormonism
I think that the larger concern is that curious non-members and on-the-fence members will come across MormonWiki and rely on it for a neutral explanation of Mormon beliefs. Not everyone is willing to investigate source material (and we all know that Mormon blogs are authoritative sources of Church doctrine, right?), and MormonWiki is bound to catch some unwary people.
But why let a little deception stand in the way of Greater Truth, eh Mr. Shafovallof?
There is a counter site, FairWiki.org, but I don’t know that the name is as intuitive as MormonWiki for people who are running searches of Mormon beliefs online.
“perecutions may rage…… calumny may defame”
Don’t write anything publicly that you would be ashamed of your Stake President or bishop reading.
IOW, think before you post/send.
I’ve violated that rule a couple times myself.
re: Romans 4:4-8
James 2:18
Does James Contradict Paul?
If it’s of any comfort, I link to a LOT of pro-Mormon pages under the “External Resources” section of articles.
I’d feel more comfortable with the idea that we shouldn’t write anything that we would feel wrong about knowing our Father in heaven is watching.
And I have to second Scott S. – “perecutions may rage…… calumny may defame”. It just seems par for the course. But I share your concern, Eric. I don’t think you should feel any blame. If I had to think of conservatives online you would be first in my mind.
Darn, how come I wasn’t quoted? I would love to see how my words were interpreted just for the amusment.
Hey, at least you’re prestigous enough to be quoted by anti-Mormons. That should make you feel a little special, eh?
The anti just owns the .org site. Most traffic will go to the .com site anyway.
@Bryce (comment 25)
I don’t know that most traffic would go to mormonwiki.com considering that wikipedia.org is theofficial wikipedia site. It seems like most wikis are .orgs from what I can tell.
Having said that, I am not concerned by someone who uses blogs as references. Most intelligent people will see that as unscholarly and dismiss most of the claims anyway. Some people might be swayed anyway, but it’s not like that wouldn’t have happened anyway. If a wiki can sway you to the other side, then you probably have little to no foundation anyway. Someone in this situation will easily be swayed back and forth depending on whatever looks good at the time.
Sorry to double post, but upon rereading my comment, I can’t believe how many times I said “anyway.” I will blame that on my currently battling a cold and my grogginess.
Here are some excerpts from Mormonwiki that gives one an idea of how concerned they are with accuracy:
“To work around the legalities of polygamous marriage, LDS polygamous temple weddings are not recorded with the government. Polygamous marriages are in fact practiced today in LDS temples, they are just not reported, and they are not consumated here on earth.
It is an accepted practice for a faithful LDS husband to ask his wife for permission to marry another woman for eternity. If the wife and the other woman agree to this, a temple wedding ceremony is performed, sealing the man and his polygamous wife for eternity, not for “time and eternity” as “time” is the time spent here on earth, and polygamy is (currently) illegal.”
and
“An LDS wife may be asked by her husband to act as a proxy for the woman that he wants to marry for eternity, perhaps if he cannot get the other woman to agree to the ceremony, or if it would be too uncomfortable to ask her permission, or if that woman is deceased.”
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Polygamy
“If I had to think of conservatives online you would be first in my mind” has got to be the best compliment ever.
Thanks Salanta