Re: [Ldsoss] Re: wikipedia becoming anti-mormon?

2007-04-05 Thread Jesse Stay
On 4/5/07, Sean M. Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps one could've argued that a slight rewording was necessary for clarity. (Perhaps "comparable" rather than "in-line".) I can't imagine why this is cause to imagine that this segment of the article was part of the anti-mormon propaganda machi

Re: [Ldsoss] Re: wikipedia becoming anti-mormon?

2007-04-05 Thread Thomas Haws
As far as the Nicene Creed goes, and flexibility of interpretation, its interpretation is certainly flexible enough to put our church in gross violation. This is especially true from the POV of numerous traditional Christians and it is explicitly not a violation of the NPOV to mention that fact.

[Ldsoss] Re: wikipedia becoming anti-mormon?

2007-04-05 Thread Sean M. Cox
Perhaps one could've argued that a slight rewording was necessary for clarity. (Perhaps "comparable" rather than "in-line".) I can't imagine why this is cause to imagine that this segment of the article was part of the anti-mormon propaganda machine. I think that despite the partial citation yo

Re: [Ldsoss] Re: wikipedia becoming anti-mormon?

2007-04-05 Thread Jesse Stay
On 4/5/07, Sean M. Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: *[[Mormons]], followers of the various churches of the [[Latter Day Saint movement]], who believe in the unity in purpose of the Godhead but that Jesus is a divine being distinct from, and created by, God the Father, but similar in every other res

Re: [Ldsoss] Re: wikipedia becoming anti-mormon?

2007-04-05 Thread Big Daddy
I have been staying out of this wikipedia becoming anti-mormon thread until I understood the issue better. I, like Sean, believe that the original version hit it pretty much on the head. It sounds like what WE as "Mormons" believe in! If this is a mistake in may part I suggest that someone poin

[Ldsoss] Re: wikipedia becoming anti-mormon?

2007-04-05 Thread Sean M. Cox
"Anti-mormon or not, it was disinformation about us and very POV (point-of-view)." I wouldn't call it disinformation or biased (which is what I assume you mean by POV, though technically NPOV is a POV). At least as far as the Mormon section went, it all looked like a good description of the Mo

Re: [Ldsoss] Re: Ldsoss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 5

2007-04-05 Thread Jesse Stay
On 4/5/07, Thomas Haws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am sorry to hear (unless it was solely original research and unattributable) that the problem has been solved by deletion. Most of what was there before was original research that I could tell - there were very few citations to backup the cla

Re: [Ldsoss] Re: Ldsoss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 5

2007-04-05 Thread Thomas Haws
the poster of that section has removed the list of religions I think that is much more NPOV and leaves it up to the reader to decide who that is. This hurts to read. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and aspires to present all human "knowledge". Less is not more at Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia po

Re: [Ldsoss] Re: Ldsoss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 5

2007-04-05 Thread Jesse Stay
On 4/5/07, Sean M. Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It looks to me like the comparison between the teachings of our church and the teachings of Arius is rather easy to make and they rather explicitly made it. We differ in some rather significant respects, but that doesn't negate the reality that th

[Ldsoss] Re: Ldsoss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 5

2007-04-05 Thread Sean M. Cox
It looks to me like the comparison between the teachings of our church and the teachings of Arius is rather easy to make and they rather explicitly made it. We differ in some rather significant respects, but that doesn't negate the reality that there are similarities. Nevertheless it didn't see

Re: [Ldsoss] Re: wikipedia becoming anti-mormon?

2007-04-05 Thread Justin Findlay
On AD 2007 April 05 Thursday 08:51:27 AM -0600, John Harrison wrote: > >The United States has lasted almost 231 years and it seems to be doing > >fine. Why not wikipedia? > > Because we've abandoned our Constitution in all sorts of ways. It was meant to be a double question. Since you've taken

Re: [Ldsoss] Re: wikipedia becoming anti-mormon?

2007-04-05 Thread John Harrison
The United States has lasted almost 231 years and it seems to be doing fine. Why not wikipedia? Because we've abandoned our Constitution in all sorts of ways. On 4/5/07, Justin Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On AD 2007 April 05 Thursday 07:05:13 AM -0600, Steven H. McCown wrote: > Can we

Re: [Ldsoss] Re: wikipedia becoming anti-mormon?

2007-04-05 Thread Justin Findlay
On AD 2007 April 05 Thursday 07:05:13 AM -0600, Steven H. McCown wrote: > Can we chalk this up to a populous with growing pains regarding > collaboration or is this indicative of persistent human nature...? The United States has lasted almost 231 years and it seems to be doing fine. Why not wikip

RE: [Ldsoss] Re: wikipedia becoming anti-mormon?

2007-04-05 Thread Steven H. McCown
You know, this Arius thing seems like another of those no win situations and to give it more than a passing concern is likely of minor value. You should state your opinion (with references) and move on. However, it is result of combining human nature with the design of wikipedia that keeps that f