Fyi, Two Mormonwikis

[Calm]

From a locked thread:

For example, the "lying for the Lord" Mormonwiki IS from the Mormonwiki pages, sponsored by FAIR! Don't we want that to be the top link found?

Unlike Cumorah, we can have definite proof that there are two Mormonwikis, one run by the More Good Foundation, one run by an antimormon group.

The one discussed in the OP of that thread is the anti-mormon group's. It can be easily identified by the fact it has a picture of Joseph Smith in the corner. I believe it was the first one up on the web. It states it is "an evangelical encyclopedia of Mormonism".

The one run by the More Good Foundation (not FAIR, but a partner with FAIR) has a picture of Christ.

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page

This last calls itself "Mormonwiki, the free encyclopedia about Mormons from the perspective of faithful members."

MormonWiki.com is sponsored by the More Good Foundationwhich offers positive, informational articles about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or Mormon Church). It is also a tool provided for the use of Foundation members. Therefore, MormonWiki.com is a purveyor of information and it is a purveyor of content. If you are not already a member of the Foundation, you should visit the Foundation's Web site and learn about what we do; we invite you to join.

No need for discussion, just wanted to correct any misunderstanding and couldn't do it on the locked thread.

[Log]

Edited May 3, 2012 by Log

[Buzzard]

One wonders if there is a Catholicwiki, or a Jehovahswitnesswiki, or Muslimwiki put out by evangelicals. My such a lot of attention paid to such a small (by comparison to the protestant world) denomination.

[zerinus]

From a locked thread:

Unlike Cumorah, we can have definite proof that there are two Mormonwikis, one run by the More Good Foundation, one run by an antimormon group.

The one discussed in the OP of that thread is the anti-mormon group's. It can be easily identified by the fact it has a picture of Joseph Smith in the corner. I believe it was the first one up on the web. It states it is "an evangelical encyclopedia of Mormonism".

The one run by the More Good Foundation (not FAIR, but a partner with FAIR) has a picture of Christ.

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page

This last calls itself "Mormonwiki, the free encyclopedia about Mormons from the perspective of faithful members."

No need for discussion, just wanted to correct any misunderstanding and couldn't do it on the locked thread.

Returning to the OP of that thread (which was closed before I could reply to it), the reason why Google produces that result is because that phrase was invented (as far as I know) by anti-Mormons with the aim of attacking Mormonism, and it is used almost exclusively for that purpose on the Internet. In other words, Google is giving a true result. It is just that phrase is used exclusively for anti-Mormon propaganda, and Google is reflecting that result as accurately as it can.

[Calm]

I don't know about who invented it, but I agree it is used primarily by antis.

[Mariner]

The post that got the subject thread locked was mine. In it, I stated the following::

I can certainly agree that there are circumstances when it is better for all concerned to tell a lie. Every married man knows the correct response to "Does this dress make my fanny look fat?"

However, when such lies are told, we must take responsibility for them and not claim that we are justified by the Lord. Liars are not justified. They have lied, and society cannot function if its members are liars.

How this comment was understood (or rather misunderstood) to mean that I was calling Mormons liars, I do not know.

The comment started out talking about husbands with wives. Thereafter, it stated that people who tell lies must stand accountable for them.

It then stated that a society cannot function if it is comprised of liars.

No individual or group was mentioned, except for married men, of which an exceedingly small minority are LDS.

If anyone reading the quoted comment can point out to me any misstatement, or show where I called anyone on the board a liar, or Mormons in general liars, please let me know.

(Looks like a clear case of ready, fire, aim to me.)

Thanks to Calmoriah for providing this opportunity to set the record straight.

[Calm]

Mariner, I think it was more likely your posts #37 and 40 that got you into trouble. Mods don't always have the chance to instantly respond to the post in error.

Is this not good evidence (from Joseph Smith himself) that the "Lying for the Lord" meme is embedded deeply in Mormon culture?

Am I the only one who is disturbed by the seemingly cavalier acceptance and widespread tolerance of this principle in the Church?

If this is de rigueur, how is one to know when it is being practiced and when not?

Perhaps is doesn't matter.

I think that looks very much like an accusation that LDS as a whole are tolerant of lying.

add-on: if you came to the conclusion that "lying for the Lord" was a LDS "meme" due to the discussion about it on mormonwiki.org, then I would encourage you to rethink your conclusion as that is an anti-mormon site.

"Lying for the Lord" is not mentioned once on LDS.org nor mormon.org, so I don't really see any evidence of "cavalier acceptance and widespread tolerance of this principle" among LDS. Mormonwiki.com, the LDS site, does not use the phrase either though it has a page on deception: http://www.mormonwiki.com/Deception That anti-mormons use the phrase as an accusation means about as much as an accusation of cannibalism for Catholics from anti-Catholics. It has little to do with actual LDS belief or behaviour no matter what someone outside our faith believes. I personally don't believe I have ever heard the phrase used in church meetings and only have used the term myself when discussing how anti-mormons use it inappropriately.

Edited May 5, 2012 by calmoriah

[selek1]

I think that looks very much like an accusation that LDS as a whole are tolerant of lying.

It was. The entire thread was a thinly veiled and selective "Mormons have a problem with honesty" screed.

Now he's just playing coy

add-on: if you came to the conclusion that "lying for the Lord" was a LDS "meme" due to the discussion about it on mormonwiki.org, then I would encourage you to rethink your conclusion as that is an anti-mormon site.

"Lying for the Lord" is not mentioned once on LDS.org nor mormon.org, so I don't really see any evidence of "cavalier acceptance and widespread tolerance of this principle" among LDS. Mormonwiki.com, the LDS site, does not use the phrase either though it has a page on deception: http://www.mormonwiki.com/Deception

The fact that "lying for the Lord" is an LDS-centric formulation- meaning that it's constructed specifically to invoke LDS terminology and imagery- was pointed out in that thread.

It was likewise pointed out that "Lying for God" and "Lying for Jesus"- constructions which are not so LDS centric produced a like or even greater number of hits in a Web search.

This demonstrated quite clearly that the alleged dishonesty was not a problem unique or exclusive to the Mormons- but Mariner continued to flog his agenda long after the evidence proved that poor horse was dead.

In my opinion, he got dinged both for proselyting and slander.

He knew his position wasn't intellectually honest, let alone sustained by reason or fact- but why let little things like those get in the way of a good old fashioned internet pogrom?.

Edited May 5, 2012 by selek1

[Mariner]

I will admit that I assumed MormonWiki.org was a faithful Mormon site when I saw the name. I see now that this is not the case. I should have checked it out myself before I listed it as being on the first page.

Tagging the OP or anything I said on the thread as intellectually dishonest, however, is going a bit far in light of well known statements made by Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff, Gordon B. Hnkley, Dalin Oaks, Jeffrey Hunter and other Church leaders as published by the LDS Church.

[selek1]

... in light of well known statements made by Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff, Gordon B. Hnkley, Dalin Oaks, Jeffrey Hunter and other Church leaders as published by the LDS Church.

See what I mean?

Right back to attacking on the the same discredited meme...

[Mariner]

Okay, Selek1.

I am going to stand down now, because I see where this is headed.

If the statements by Church leaders I alluded to have been "discredited", why not issue a CFR for the statements so that you can try to demonstrate that this is the case?

If you would care to do so, I could provide a list of such statements as contained in Church approved literature.

The list would start with "--- when I can only find one."

However, rather than engage in what would constitute the rancorous continuation of a closed thread topic, I would rather stand down and simply suggest that anyone interested can readily come up with their own list.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Mariner