New Feature: CF Christian Wiki!!!

[Swart]

I have a suggestion... Why not try to open the Christian Wiki to ALL CF members, just to see what happens? Wikipedia is open to absolutely everyone, and it's one of the most popular and reliable sources of information in the whole internet. And if the CF Wiki is open to everyone, then it will definitely grow much quicker...

IMO, there is an obvious answer to that. If it was open to all, then it would be a level playing field with only the dissemination of factual information permitted. Polemics, Faith Promoting Rumours, Hearsay and speculation would be omitted.

I have always maintained that the only way for OCs to defend against our teaching is for them to be misrepresented and for the rules of discussion to be stacked against us. That's how it is on UT. I can't see why it would be any different elsewhere on this site. Allowing our beliefs to be fairly represented would challenge that and risk having people converted to our beliefs from here.

One of the strengths of faith is to not see the need to pull down the beliefs of others. If your faith is true then it will withstand its trials. A true faith only needs to be proclaimed and does not require defining itself in terms of opposition to another faith.

 

[Scholar in training]

I have always maintained that the only way for OCs to defend against our teaching is for them to be misrepresented and for the rules of discussion to be stacked against us.

But it is perfectly fine for you to accuse Christians of misrepresentation in this thread?

That's how it is on UT. I can't see why it would be any different elsewhere on this site. Allowing our beliefs to be fairly represented would challenge that and risk having people converted to our beliefs from here.

Although CF is, quite obviously, a Christian message board, and therefore does not want other religions to be promoted, there is a fine line between promotion and discussion.

But I think that the proponents of each religion drive people away perfectly well on their own, without anyone else's help. Take Brigham Young's blasphemous statement about the Father and Mary cohabitating, for instance: "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood — was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers."

 

[Swart]

Part of the problem is that those that like to distort the truth love to trot out statements by our leaders that when out of context appear to say one thing and then juxtapose those with quotes from totally unrealted material and pretend it is a cohesive whole and say "Look! Mormons believe X". After constructing this straw man they then proceed to demolish it. They then completely ignore statements (often from those they are quoting) that contradict that assumption and in many cases completely debunk it.

I thoroughly recommend a reading of Bruce R. McConkies excellent talks "The Purifying Power of Gethsemane" (BRMs last talk) and "Seven Deadly Heresies" (google ZIONS BEST MCCONKIE) and compare them with claims made against us.

Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false. (Mormon Doctrine, p 822)

And now as pertaining to this perfect Atonement, I testify that it took place at Gethsemane and at Golgotha. And as pertaining to Jesus Christ, I testify that pertaining to Jesus Christ, I testify that he is the Son of the Living God who was crucified for the sins of the world. He is our Lord, our God, and our King. This I know of myself independent of any other person. I am one of his Witnesses. And in the coming day I will feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears. But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God's almighty Son and he is our Savior and Redeemer and that Salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way. -BRM

Actually, this goes a long way to proving my thesis. You only have to look at how obviously distorted the material from anti-Mormon websites is to realise that any semblance of impartiality will be impossible without our input. Most of the material is so easily answered I have given some of to my youth Sunday School class to laugh at. Most of it is as factual as saying that Catholics believe in human sacrifice and practice a form of ritualistic cannibalism. A statement that is 100% technically true.

 

[Scholar in training]

I thoroughly recommend a reading of Bruce R. McConkies excellent talks "The Purifying Power of Gethsemane" (BRMs last talk) and "Seven Deadly Heresies" (google ZIONS BEST MCCONKIE) and compare them with claims made against us.

Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false. (Mormon Doctrine, p 822)

I am aware that Mormons say they believe in the virgin birth. I am also aware that JWs say that Jesus is Lord even though their understanding of the relationship of the Father to the Son is closest to Arianism; I am aware that Nestorians said that Jesus was fully God even though they said Mary wasn't the mother of God; etc.

The problem is that they say they believe orthodox doctrine but they really do not. If they did, they would no longer be JWs, Mormons, Nestorians etc. They do not agree on the definition of the words as they are used in orthodoxy and in the process make them devoid of meaning; and words cannot have two mutually exclusive definitions at the same time.

This is why it is said that Mormons believe the virgin birth despite the fact (or, according to the LDS, because of the fact...!) that they say the Father tabernacled among us.

Actually, this goes a long way to proving my thesis. You only have to look at how obviously distorted the material from anti-Mormon websites is to realise that any semblance of impartiality will be impossible without our input.

Without the assumption that they are wrong, your argument has NO basis.

I wonder if you could explain to us the Holy Trinity as Christians understand it? (rhetorical question).

Part of the problem is that those that like to distort the truth love to trot out statements by our leaders that when out of context appear to say one thing and then juxtapose those with quotes from totally unrealted material and pretend it is a cohesive whole and say "Look! Mormons believe X".

Most of the material is so easily answered I have given some of to my youth Sunday School class to laugh at. Most of it is as factual as saying that Catholics believe in human sacrifice and practice a form of ritualistic cannibalism. A statement that is 100% technically true.

What we do see in Catholicism is a rejection of the belief that they are cannibals (even though the wording comes close, but was never intended to take that meaning). What we do see in Orthodoxy is a rejection of the belief that they are pantheists (even though the wording comes close, but was never intended to take that meaning).

We do not see this in Mormonism.

Furthermore, Catholics and the Orthodox are talking about facts; things that the Bible talks about and things which are present in Tradition. They talk about the Son becoming man because this is dogma; whereas the Mormons talk about the Father "tabernacling among us" and in the process confuse the Persons of the Trinity and speak outright blasphemy.

(I moved your first paragraph down here because it is essentially the same objection you give in the last paragraph).

 

[CaDan]

Get an engineering crew down here, pronto!

Unorthodox Theology has leaked into CF Support! If we don't get this cut off in five minutes, we're gonna have a warp core breach!

 

[Swart]

I wonder if you could explain to us the Holy Trinity as Christians understand it? (rhetorical question).

This is an excellent point. I have heard many arguments against the Trinity that confuse it with Modalism. These arguments begin with 'Trinitarians believe...' and then go one to explain the modalist position. The argument then devolves into one of "No, we don't believe that" "Yes. You do."

The problem is that *I* may not understand the difference between Trinitarianism and Modalism even though *you* do. The problem then lies not with *you* but with *me*. My problem is a lack of understanding of beliefs that aren't my own. Fundamentally, I SHOULD be able to elucidate the beliefs of another TO THEIR SATISFACTION before engaging in a discussion on the merits of those beliefs.

If you look at the AM arguments, it goes much the same way. Quite simply, our beliefs are rarely elucidated to our satisfaction. AMs then claim this must be because of some deception on our part. They totally fail to pick up on the concept that perhaps it is a problem with their own understanding and not ours. We know what we believe, thank you very much, we don't need someone else to tell us what we *really* believe.

Again, all this goes to demonstrate my thesis. I'm sure you wouldn't want a Mormon writing up on the Trinity without any input from a Trinitarian. That simply would not make sense.

Naturally, the converse is also true.

Everything else in this discussion needs to be taken to UT where it will get a proper response.

 

[Swart]

Get an engineering crew down here, pronto!

Unorthodox Theology has leaked into CF Support! If we don't get this cut off in five minutes, we're gonna have a warp core breach!

LOL! I have suitabley restrained myself. I have tried to keep my replies topical to the issue at hand.

I think this manifestly demonstrates the problem we are discussing.

 

[TheAntiLion]

No, it doesn't. What it says is that bias will always be called into question. Statements can be true, but slanted in such a way to alter perception.

At best, comments will be brought into line with the LDS position. No statements will actually originate from the LDS position.

I ask again, would Catholics be happy with non-Catholics writing a statement of Catholic beliefs?

Given the state of affairs at UT, I can only expect polemics to be the order of the day.



I didn't say that. I said call it what you like, but by definition it isn't a wiki.

You seem to assume that someone out there can write something without bias. That is impossible. Everyone somehow someway puts in bias in whatever they are writting.

Erwin wants this project to be done by those who can post in the CO sections, hince he put them in there. He is NOT discriminating aginst anyone, because he thinks they will be untruthful. Erwin is not punishing those who cannot post in CO sections. Erwin is not thumbing his nose at those who cannot post in the CO section. I'm just wondering if there will be this short of outcry every single time there is a new feature added. Erwin has given much to the membership of this board, and has worked very hard to keep this site going, including the funding of it out of pocket. Erwin has made almost every single feature advailable to everyone. To the best of my knowledge this is the ONLY feature that is distictly for those in the CO section. It is a CF Wiki, and Erwin has further defined it as a wiki in which only those under the Rule 6 can work on. I do not think that the membership on the Wiki team will seek to attack or belittle any of the religions represented on this board. Nor do I think they will pressent such one-sided veiws as being proposed here and elsewhere. Just have some trust in those compiling this project. If you see something objectionable report it or PM a wiki team member to give them better insight. Attacking them without cause just because they are allowed to post in it, and others arn't is really just being spiteful IMO. Let's see how it goes before we start predicting doom and gloom.

 

[Swart]

You seem to assume that someone out there can write something without bias. That is impossible. Everyone somehow someway puts in bias in whatever they are writting.

You have completely missed the point I'm making. As long as you exclude anyone from a wiki it is no longer a wiki.

Compounding this is the fact that information about groups is being written with no representation from any member of that group. Even before it starts, it is biased.

The wiki concepts evades bias by allowing anyone to edit. I have given examples from wikipedia which is a real life example of how a wiki works in reality. You either trust the concept or you don't. Like free speech, there is no middle ground.

 

[TheAntiLion]

You have completely missed the point I'm making. As long as you exclude anyone from a wiki it is no longer a wiki.

This is not wikipedia. This is a forum specific wiki, in which those who can post in that forum can participate in that wiki. The wiki is in the CO section, and as per rule 6, only those who can post in the CO section can write/edit the wiki.

 

[Plan 9]

Get an engineering crew down here, pronto!

Unorthodox Theology has leaked into CF Support! If we don't get this cut off in five minutes, we're gonna have a warp core breach!

Instead, I suggest we initiate the auto self-destruct sequence and have done with it.

 

[Scholar in training]

This is an excellent point.

I put "rhetorical question" there for a reason.

If you look at the AM arguments, it goes much the same way.

AM?

Quite simply, our beliefs are rarely elucidated to our satisfaction.

Then you have an open floor to correct this "AM" (if that is what I am) about any of the other issues my earlier post addressed.

Again, all this goes to demonstrate my thesis. I'm sure you wouldn't want a Mormon writing up on the Trinity without any input from a Trinitarian. That simply would not make sense.

Again, the difference is that whereas Christianity has rejected unorthodox interpretations of God, Mormons have not. If they have - if Brigham Young, or Joseph Smith, or the Apostles or their immediate followers - if they have said that their statements about the Father tabernacling among us were not to interpreted one way or that they did not mean it that way (even though this has NO theological basis in Tradition whereas, for example, eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ does), then show me where they say it.

 

[CaDan]

[size=+2]
COOLANT LEAK!
COOLANT LEAK!
​

[/SIZE]

TWO MINUTES UNTIL AUTOMATIC CORE DUMP

CORE DUMP IN 1 MINUTE 50 SECONDS . . . .
​

 

[Victory of the Cross]

[SIZE=+2]

COOLANT LEAK!
COOLANT LEAK!​

[/SIZE]

TWO MINUTES UNTIL AUTOMATIC CORE DUMP​

CORE DUMP IN 1 MINUTE 50 SECONDS . . . .​

*Runs like crazy* *Pauses for dramatic effect* "I can't leave without you"

 

[CaDan]

*Runs like crazy* *Pauses for dramatic effect* "I can't leave without you"

Go! Just leave me a Number 12 spanner and a sledge.

Go!

 

[Swart]

I put "rhetorical question" there for a reason.

<snip rest>

You have totally missed the point of what I am trying to say. You are discussing the examples. To avoid the polemics, lets change the examples.

Say Microsoft was running a forum that was open to both Microsoft and non-Microsoft Engineers and decided to make a wiki on their site. However, they decided to exclude non-Microsoft Engineers from contributing to the wiki. Of what value would you place the "Open Source" entries on that wiki? What if some of the MS Engineers said "That's okay, just PM me if there are errors and I'll correct them, I'm not biased."

The problem is that we are ALL biased to one extent or another no matter how dispassionate we try to be. This is a recognised fact in many other areas of life; we recuse ourselves due to conflicts of interest and to avoid the very appearance of impropriety. The foundation of a wiki concept is that it doesn't matter if we are biased as long as everyone can contribute. The wiki is self-correcting due to the participation of all concerned parties. If participation is denied to some, it is no longer a wiki. Encyclopaedia Brittanica may take strenuous efforts to be unbiased, but it is not a wiki. It's checks and balances come from internal rather than external forces. It succeeds or fails on a case by case basis. A wiki is by definition completely unbiased not because it holds directly to a NPOV, but because the NPOV is enforced by the interested parties. Remove an interested party and by definition you lose the NPOV.

That's the crux of my argument: CF has three choices:

1) Remove all entries about unrepresented parties
2) Open the entries to all parties
3) Don't call it a wiki, call it CFPedia or something else, because as it stands it is NOT a wiki.

I don't care which option is taken. Personally, I think option 3 will be the one that is opted for. If it wasn't called a wiki I wouldn't even be discussing this. Wiki has a definite meaning in the Open Source world and OS is something I am passionate about. As I said, it is something you either get or you don't.

This discussion reminds me of Noam Chomsky's defence of Fourisson's right to free speech. Fourisson was a Holocaust denier that was gaoled for his beliefs. Chomsky spoke out for his right to free speech. Many people that didn't understand the concept of free speech assumed that Chomsky must have been defending Fourisson's thesis. They were simply incapable of understanding the concepts of free speech. If you are in favour of free speech, then you are in favour of it for precisely the points of view you despise, otherwise you're not in favour of free speech. It is the same with the wiki concept, if you support the concept, then you maintain that all voices have a right to be heard and that all arguments deserve to have a hearing, otherwise you don't support the wiki concept.

I have had wiki participants PM me and offer to post my contributions as their own. The argument is that this will keep it fair. This is the same argument that was used against women's suffrage. It was argued that women didn't need to vote because their husbands would represent their wishes for them.

Once again: You either get the wiki concept or you don't. The example I have given here is the Microsoft example. If you want to discuss issues, take them to UT. Discussing LDS issues here only demonstrates you don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

PS:
AM = Anti-Mormon

 

[CaDan]

I'm trying to find support for the claim that a set of editable web pages must allow all users the power to edit in order to be considered a wiki.

 

[kiwimac]

CaDan,

I may be wrong but I suspect Swart's point is that all humans are inevitably biased. Folk who identify as being within the broad mainstream of Christianity will almost certainly be biased against LDS / RLDS / Temple Lot folk.

Would any of use trust that articles in (say) a Jehovah's Witness wiki that spoke about other faiths / denominations but which was ONLY open to JW's in good standing to edit?

If we want balanced POVs then opening the wiki up to all comers is one way to avoid the all-too-human bias that Swart is speaking of.

Speaking as an ex-LDS you would not expect that any article I wrote about the LDS church would be unbiased (you'd be wrong but you'd be right to be suspicious!) so why should Swart expect that articles written about the LDS church will not be unbiased and (possibly) unchangeable.

Kiwimac

 

[lockofhair]

hey I dono where I should post.. but I am new and i wana chat

 

[Swart]

I'm trying to find support for the claim that a set of editable web pages must allow all users the power to edit in order to be considered a wiki.

Wiki Philosophy
Editability is Readability is Usability::Anyone can edit the Wiki.

This philosophy is not bizarre or obscene. It is only the SocialContract we are all born into as part of a wider society. We must all strive and struggle to advance society as a whole. Descending into anything less is the ruin of us all. It is clear from history there are personal rewards for even SelfishVolunteers as long as we all maintain this goal beyond ourselves. TheWikiWay is no more and no less than maturity.

source

Wiki works because:

• [wiki] is the most naked embodiment of the HyperLink concept.
• Everybody feels that they have a sense of responsibility because anybody can contribute.
• Any information can be changed or deleted by anyone. Wiki pages represent consensus because it's much easier to DeleteInsults and remove WikiSpam than indulge them. What remains is naturally meaningful and has been essentially collated from multiple points of view.
• Anyone can play. This sounds like a recipe for low signal - Wiki gets hit by the great unwashed as often as any other site - but to make an impact on Wiki, you need to generate real content. Anything else will be removed. So anyone can play, but only good players remain.
• There's a strong commitment from the WikiCommunity to keeping the Wiki clean and nice - we all use it, so we all try to maintain it in a usable state. Also it's fun to participate, and people play nice when the game is fun.
• Wiki doesn't work in real time. People take time to think, sometimes days or weeks, before they follow up some edit. So what people write is generally well-considered.
• A wiki is a body of writing that a community is willing to know and maintain. That community has every right to be cautiously selective in what it will groom. This particular wiki has been blessed with thoughtful, diligent, diverse and open-minded volunteers, who have invested years learning what works here and what doesn't. When volunteers tire and depart, others take their place. I remain amazed that this works without mechanically enforced authority. Possibly it works because there is no mechanically enforced authority. In any event, I remain grateful to all volunteers, past, present and future. -- WardCunningham [moved from WhyWikiDoesntWork?]
• Primarily, what can be posted here are pages related to programming. But someone has to decide what off topic subjects stay, so some people have to take care of this delicate task. Sometimes we have to fight against one or two users to keep offtopic pages. The best attitude with offtopic subjects is not to have high expectations. If it's offtopic it will be erased eventually. If not tomorrow, then next week or next month... What really counts at the end of the day is that important pages stay. [moved from WhyWikiDoesntWork]
• Usually courtesy wins over principle. If someone really wants to keep pages and if the pages are not too off-topic, we leave them. Better make someone happy than arguing for hours over 1K! [moved from WhyWikiDoesntWork]
• Its readers, editors, and creators of new pages consider the special needs of users, including those with limited vision or those who cannot see by being aware of ScreenReadingTechnology.

source

1.4 What are the major features of a Wiki?

Here are some important wiki features:

• Editability by anyone - A wiki page is editable by anyone with a web browser
• ability to view recent changes
• ability to search pages (several ways)
• ability to very easily add new pages
• ability to see the change history for a document
• ability to add new information or modify existing information

source