leonheartmm
{i didnt put this in the relegion section because it concerns manipulation for self interest by an organisation more than relegious validity}.
now we all know that wikipedia is a site that is dependant on individuals to edit and add to it to. it also states that one can not present a one sided or prpagandist or misleading or self interesting views or information when one is editting articles. browsing through a few articles concerning mormonism on youtube, i was more than a little shocked to see that not only are the main relegious pages completely void of any of the usual criticism for mormonism that we see and hear in society and intellectual circles, but PAGES UPON PAGES of misleading, psuedoscientific phenomoenon and connections between its scriptures/teachings and physical phenomenon have been created.
there is also no mention of the overt absurdities that are/were basic parts of the mormon teachings{e.g. the issue about RACIAL discrimination in mormonism is hardly touched upon and tinted in a very positive light}
dont beleive me?
exhibit a------------------{i dont even know where it ends}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism
{genetics and book of mormon..........................}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon
{archeology and book of mormonism....................................}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon
{joseph smith senior and junior...................not one word critiquing them or pointing out that they were frauds.....}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Sr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
{beleifs............dont really mention the underwear or the space god or the devil being jesus' brother or rejecting blacks until the 70s as slaves or the fact of polygamy, no women are about as active as men here}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Beliefs_and_practices_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Chris
t_of_Latter-day_Saints
{historicity.....wow, does any1 else think this is too soft and not representative of the people}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon
{prophecies.............again every noted criticism is rationalised away}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
{blacks and the church............a sickeningly rosy picture}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement
and trust me it goes ON AND ON. this reminds me very much of over zealous {or maybe normal} scientology members who wud constantly check the content of scientology related topics on wikipedia and as soon as sumthing questionable from their propagandist point of view appeared, edited it away. to the point that wiki had to ban them for some time. im not sure whether its merely ignorance or laziness on part of the online community to let this slide. ive seen sumwhat similar trends on some islamic pages{not so much on christianity because too many are informed}, but even scientology propaganda pales in comparison to this whitewash.
ofcourse, this is rather dangerous seeing as just how important and valid{to a vast portion of people on the net} wikipedia is to the online community and many dont bother or cant be bothered to do field specific research on such subjects by reading individual books/volumes on them.
discuss, edit, agree, disagree.
now we all know that wikipedia is a site that is dependant on individuals to edit and add to it to. it also states that one can not present a one sided or prpagandist or misleading or self interesting views or information when one is editting articles. browsing through a few articles concerning mormonism on youtube, i was more than a little shocked to see that not only are the main relegious pages completely void of any of the usual criticism for mormonism that we see and hear in society and intellectual circles, but PAGES UPON PAGES of misleading, psuedoscientific phenomoenon and connections between its scriptures/teachings and physical phenomenon have been created.
there is also no mention of the overt absurdities that are/were basic parts of the mormon teachings{e.g. the issue about RACIAL discrimination in mormonism is hardly touched upon and tinted in a very positive light}
dont beleive me?
exhibit a------------------{i dont even know where it ends}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism
{genetics and book of mormon..........................}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon
{archeology and book of mormonism....................................}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon
{joseph smith senior and junior...................not one word critiquing them or pointing out that they were frauds.....}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Sr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
{beleifs............dont really mention the underwear or the space god or the devil being jesus' brother or rejecting blacks until the 70s as slaves or the fact of polygamy, no women are about as active as men here}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Beliefs_and_practices_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Chris
t_of_Latter-day_Saints
{historicity.....wow, does any1 else think this is too soft and not representative of the people}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon
{prophecies.............again every noted criticism is rationalised away}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
{blacks and the church............a sickeningly rosy picture}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement
and trust me it goes ON AND ON. this reminds me very much of over zealous {or maybe normal} scientology members who wud constantly check the content of scientology related topics on wikipedia and as soon as sumthing questionable from their propagandist point of view appeared, edited it away. to the point that wiki had to ban them for some time. im not sure whether its merely ignorance or laziness on part of the online community to let this slide. ive seen sumwhat similar trends on some islamic pages{not so much on christianity because too many are informed}, but even scientology propaganda pales in comparison to this whitewash.
ofcourse, this is rather dangerous seeing as just how important and valid{to a vast portion of people on the net} wikipedia is to the online community and many dont bother or cant be bothered to do field specific research on such subjects by reading individual books/volumes on them.
discuss, edit, agree, disagree.