This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
1. Milk In Pre-Columbian America?2. Camora Vs. Cumorah3. From View Of The Hebrews?4. Helen Mar Kimball’s “Marriage”5. Oliver Cowdery Divining Rod6. Mark Petersen Racist Quote7. Seer Stones8. ‘Mormons’ As A Sect9. United Order Vs. Marxism10. Lies About Martin Harris11. Blood Atonement12. First Vision Accounts13. Criticism Of Anti-Mormons Missing14. Antimormon Is Wikipedia Editors
Many people read Wikipedia because its content has been scrutinized so much and it shows up at the top of Google search results. If a million people all agree on something, chances are it is truth, right? The problem is it isn’t really democratic. In theory, anyone can edit articles, but in practice top leadership is highly selective about what gets published, and heavy bias results–worse bias than with normal encyclopedias.
Politics is one area of heavy bias, which should come as no surprise. But even worse than politics, in my opinion, is religion on Wikipedia. Pretty much every time I read about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Wikipedia article is saturated with lies, bias, and hateful rhetoric. At first I tried to correct these errors myself, but my edits were quickly erased. I’ve gave up. I’ve also given up keeping track of the lies because there are so many. It is clear Antimormon bigotry is in complete control of this area of Wikipedia and pro-church or objective sources are shut out. Why did Wikipedia’s leadership select Antimormons to be thought-leaders? Here are some of the main hoaxes perpetuated by Wikipedia.
1. No Milk In Pre-Columbian America
A Wikipedia page titled “Historicity of the Book of Mormon” ignores the vast collection of literary and archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon. Instead they list supposed anachronisms, a list which you can find on hundreds of Antimormon websites. I have debunked many of these allegations here.
One alleged anachronisms (something they are claiming did not exist in ancient America that the Book of Mormon says did) is “milk.” Wait, milk? Milk didn’t exist in North America? Mammals did not produce milk for their babies until Christopher Columbus landed? Really? Wow, that’s quite a claim.
Wikipedia also doesn’t provide a source for this claim. Well, maybe it is referring to the human consumption of animal milk. Maybe human consumption of milk is what didn’t exist in pre-Columbian times. First, they don’t say “animal milk.” They just say “milk.” Obviously, babies were drinking mother’s milk in pre-Columbian times. Secondly, there is no way of knowing Native Americans didn’t consume animal milk. Third, the Book of Mormon never even talks about consuming milk! The only mentions of milk in the Book of Mormon are quoting from the Book of Isaiah. So it’s a total and complete lie. Yes, there was milk in pre-Columbian America and no it is not an anachronism in the Book of Mormon. Neither are the other things they list. But when you read their long list of anachronisms, you are probably going to be fooled into thinking it is concrete evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
2. Camora Vs. Cumorah
Wikipedia fabricated a hoax that an African island named Comoros was named Camora prior to 1841. They claim an old map “refers to the islands as ‘Camora’.” This is totally false. Comoros was never named Camora and there are zero maps that name it Camora. The only place where Antimormons can find the name Camora is in the 1808 edition of the lengthy Irish book “The General Gazetteer,” in a tiny corner of a page. You have to use a magnifying glass to find it. But look closer. Does it actually say Camora?
The last vowel looks like an “a,” but the other vowels look like “o”s. It says Comora. Clearly, not Camora. All other sources I’ve seen call it Comoro. This one map from Ireland happens to add an “a” on the end.
City Moroni – Wikipedia further claims, “Complementing this proposal is the theory that Smith borrowed the name of a settlement in the Comoros—Moroni—and applied it to the angel which led him to the golden plates.” False. This could not possibly be true, as the city Moroni in Comoros did not get its name until long after Joseph Smith’s death. It only became the capitol in 1876, and until then was named Meroni, not Moroni. It did not show up on any maps or books, and it is unlikely that Joseph Smith would have ever heard about it. There is zero mention of it on that Irish map or any source Joseph Smith could have come across. Wikipedia not only fabricates the Comoros hoax, but they also withhold this historical information to promote this false narrative about the name Moroni.
There is zero evidence Joseph Smith could have come across this random book in Ireland anyway. But that doesn’t stop Wikipedia from spreading this hoax on their article about the Hill Cumorah, as well as the article about the island Comoros. This is shocking because a) the claim is false, b) has nothing to do with the Hill Cumorah, and yet Wikipedia’s article is the number one result for Google when you search for “Cumorah.” That makes it a huge problem. Google allows their number one search result for Cumorah to be a fake hoax, an attack on an entire religion. Anywhere in the world, someone will look up something as basic about the church as the Hill Cumorah and the top result will be a total fabrication.
The Camora hoax on Wikipedia apparently got spread around by an editor named “Sesmith.” When you look up the history of “Sesmith”, you find that they edit Wikipedia articles having to do with the Mormon church. In this screenshot of their history, they petitioned to prevent a Wikipedia article on “Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” from being deleted, arguing that it is “notable and well-referenced.” That is who Wikipedia has making major edits on important Wikipedia articles.
Hoax on Wikipedia Page: 
Page Revision History Log: 
Wikipedia Editor ‘Sesmith’: 
3. Book Of The Mormon Parallels With View Of The Hebrews
Wikipedia claims, “Mormon scholars noted the parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon and suggested that Joseph Smith had used View of the Hebrews as a source in composing the Book of Mormon.” As evidence, they point to a long series of alleged “parallels.” These are the same parallels which are found on many Antimormon websites. But they fall apart when you actually investigate the literature. It’s just flimsy confirmation bias.
| View of the Hebrews | Book of Mormon | |
| Both books quote extensively from the Old Testament prophecies of the Book of Isaiah: | View of the Hebrews does quote Isaiah, along with many other books from the bible, in order to give lengthy commentary on bible teachings, to give observations about how scriptures are being fulfilled in the present day, and what they mean. | The Book of Mormon gives little commentary on Isaiah, but just quotes multiple chapters verbatim, out of the Brass Plates. Isaiah is the only bible book quoted at length. The purpose for quoting the bible is totally different. |
| Describe the future gathering of Israel and restoration of the Ten Lost Tribes: | False. The only “gathering” talked about in View of the Hebrews is the “gathering” of Jews to Jerusalem. It talks about restoring the Ten Tribes with the Jews: “Indians of America are the descendants of the ten tribes of Israel,” and “the ten tribes are to be restored with the Jews in the last days.” The Book of Mormon does not claim this, however. | The Book of Mormon claims that some Indians of America descended of the Lamanites, who are descended from Manasseh. They are not the lost Ten Tribes. The Book of Mormon says of the Ten Tribes: “whither they are none of us knoweth.” It says “the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews,” and the house Israel shall be gathered, but there is no mention of being restored with the Jews. |
| Propose the peopling of the New World from the Old via a long sea journey: | False. There is no mention of a long sea journey. View of the Hebrews claims all Native Americans originated from a single large migration over the Bering Strait, “of one origin,” except for some small migrations from Europe via Greenland. This is similar to today’s popular scientific and Antimormon narrative. It also claims they originated from the lost Ten Tribes, contrary to what the Book of Mormon teaches. “New” and “old” world are described in a modern American context, not regarding the migration of Native Americans. | The Book of Mormon describes multiple small migrations across the sea directly to the Americas. |
| Declare a religious motive for the migration: | False. There is no mention of religion being a motivating factor for migrations in View of the Hebrews. The books claims the Natives retained a strict culture until White explorers arrived. It claims their culture “much degenerated” in a period of “about eighty years.” This is the opposite of the Book of Mormon’s narrative. | The Book of Mormon gives religion as a clear motivation for migrating. |
| Divide the migrants into civilized and uncivilized groups with long wars between them and the eventual destruction of the civilized by the uncivilized: | View of the Hebrews observes that in the ancient Americas “barbarous hordes invaded their more civilized brethren.” There is no mention of classes or divisions, nor division into two main groups, but just the general observation that barbarians invade other civilizations. There is no mention of how long the wars lasted and I don’t find anything about eventual destruction. | The Book of Mormon describes complex social structures of classes of people. The Nephites–after they became barbarous themselves–were completely exterminated by the Lamanites in open battle. It is not a case of civilized versus barbarous classes. |
| Assume that Native Americans were descended from Israelites and their languages from Hebrew: | View of the Hebrews claims the Natives all originated from a single large migration over the Bering Strait. This is similar to today’s popular scientific narrative, except that they all originally came from the Hebrews–which is similar to today’s false Antimormon portrayal of what the Book of Mormon teaches. The book also points out similarities between Hebrew of some Native American languages. | The Book of Mormon describes multiple small direct migrations, the larger part of which were not Hebrew (the Jaredites). It mentions that they spoke a form of Hebrew but also indicates there were other languages spoken. |
| Include a change of government from monarchy to republican: | False. There is no mention of a republic government or society. View of the Hebrews claims the American Indians had a “theocratic-patriarchal” government, and a “succession of twelve monarchies.” There is no mention of judges, representatives, a shift in government, or elected leaders. Nothing having to do with democracy. This parallel is utterly fabricated. | The Book of Mormon records a shift in Nephite government from monarchy to elected representatives, completely unlike in View of the Hebrews. |
| Suggest that the gospel was preached in ancient America: | The only mention I could find in View of the Hebrews was the modern-day preaching of “great and generous Christian people, who occupy much of the land of those natives.” Does any skeptic dispute that modern-day Christians preach the gospel in America today? No mention of the gospel preached in ancient America. | The Book of Mormon tells of many instances of the gospel being preached in ancient times in America. Totally different events. |
Wikipedia’s only source for all of these fake parallels is a single Antimormon book.
4. Helen Mar Kimball’s “Marriage” To Joseph Smith
| See also: | Did Joseph Smith Marry Girl? |
In their article about Mormon pioneer Helen Mar Kimball, Wikipedia’s opening sentence defines her simply as “one of at least 27 plural wives of Joseph Smith.” Not her achievements as a pioneer or author of several books. No mention of those accomplishments. Wikipedia repeats a false claim by an Antimormon book that claims “several” of Joseph Smith’s wives “were still pubescent girls, such as fourteen-year-old Helen Mar Kimball.” (Krakauer 2003, p. 120) Not true. Then, they repeat Krakauer’s snide remark: “His way of getting laid doesn’t reflect well on him.” This is an encyclopedia?! Using this kind of snide ridicule and crass language?
Helen Mar Kimball described her sealing with Joseph Smith as “for eternity alone.” (Autobiography, p. 2) “The step I now am taking’s for eternity alone.” Early church members carefully distinguished between marriage “for time” and celestial sealing “for eternity.” A sealing for eternity was the promise that two people would be married in the afterlife. Joseph Smith had no children with Helen, as an “eternity only” sealing did not involve any physical relations. A DNA study has found Joseph Smith didn’t have children with any of his plural wives, indicating he probably had no physical relations with any of them.
Wikipedia says Helen was later “married for time” to Horace Whitney, but fails to report that Helen’s sealing to Joseph Smith was “for eternity alone.” This leaves the reader with the false impression that it was for time and eternity and therefore involved physical relations. Their disgusting quote from Krakaeuer about “getting laid” reinforces this false impression. Wikipedia also fails to explain the difference between marriage for time and sealing for eternity in this and other articles on the subject. This false impression reinforces a common bigoted attitude that people hold against the church because of polygamy.
5. Oliver Cowdery Divining Rod
In their article about Oliver Cowdery, Wikipedia claims: “In his youth, Cowdery hunted for buried treasure using a divining rod.” Their source is a single Antimormon, and is totally false. There is zero evidence Oliver Cowdery or his family had anything to do with divining rods and treasure hunting. All allegations derive from a quote by Antimormon author Barnes Frisbie, who said a man believed to work with divining rods visited the Cowdery home:
“The time he came here I cannot give, but it was, undoubtedly, sometime in the year 1799… He first went to a Mr. Cowdery’s, in Well, who then lived in that town… Winchell, I have been told, was a friend and acquaintance of Cowdery’s but of this I cannot be positive, they were intimate afterwards; but Winchell staid at Cowdry’s some little time, keeping himself concealed.”
(The History of Middletown, Vermont, in Three Discourses)
That’s it! A dedicated Antimormon claimed a guy who people said used a divining rod visited the home of Oliver Cowdery’s father once. That is the basis of Wikipedia’s claim that Oliver Cowdery hunted treasure and used a divining rod? Antimormons also often point to D&C 8 as evidence. They say “the gift of Aaron” mentioned in D&C 8 is secret code for “divining rod.” But I have thoroughly debunked that theory here.
6. Mark Petersen Racist Quote
| See also: | Is Mark E. Petersen Quote Fake? |
Wikipedia claims: “At Brigham Young University on 27 August 1954, at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Petersen delivered the speech, “Race Problems—As They Affect the Church”… Particularly, he reaffirmed the LDS Church’s stance at that time that those with dark skin had been less valiant in their lives before coming to earth. He also reiterated the idea that blacks were to be servants to righteous white people after the resurrection, as was the case with Jane Manning James…”
Everything Wikipedia claims here is a lie. The evidence that Mark Petersen delivered this speech as quoted in Wikipedia is flimsy. Likely a fake quote. The church never had a stance that people with dark skin had been less valiant. The church never taught this. Mark Petersen likely never taught this. He likely never “reiterated” anything about Blacks being servants in heaven, and the church never taught this. Church members never believed this. And Jane Manning James is not even mentioned in Wikipedia’s own quote–none of it has anything to do with Jane Manning James.
Wikipedia refers to a photocopied pamphlet on archive.org as the source of their Mark Petersen quote. No mention of who created this book, why they created it, where it came from, how they acquired it, or anything else. When did archive.org acquire it? Whom they acquired it from? Why they don’t have an original source? etc. We are just supposed to believe a photocopy of something?
The earliest record I found of the Mark Petersen quote is a book that associates it with a 1963 Library of Congress listing by “Modern Microfilm Co.” This Modern Microfilm Co. was the name of Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Antimormon organization. So was the original source for this quote an Antimormon? Published years after the address allegedly occurred? The Worldcat inventory of library listings attributes the University of Utah copy–and a bunch of copies at other universities–to Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Modern Microfilm Co. listed under “subject”, with the same 28 cm dimension as Tanner’s book. This Antimormon book is apparently the only source for this Mark Petersen quote in the Worldcat library listings.
BYU lists Modern Microfilm as the publisher. Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary lists Modern Microfilms Co. as the publisher. Colgate University lists Modern Microfilms Co. as the publisher. Colgate University lists Modern Microfilms Co. as the publisher. University of Utah does not list the publisher. The only exception I have found is Church historical records, which list a copy of the Race Problems pamphlet with BYU as the publisher. Does this mean BYU published the pamphlet separately from the Modern Microfilm Co. copy that we see as the only listing in BYU’s records? Well, on the Worldcat library inventory listings for BYU and BYU’s own records, I only see Modern Microfilm Co. No mention of BYU as the publisher. So why don’t the Worldcat and BYU inventories show a copy with BYU listed as publisher and why do they instead associate Modern Microfilm with it? Also, why do both the Modern Microfilm copy and this BYU copy just happen to be photocopies, with the same 28 cm dimension? Just coincidence? The most logical guess I can think of is that the Modern Microfilm Co. copy is BYU’s only copy and the church record listed it as BYU because the church acquired it from BYU. It would be quite strange for BYU to publish a separate copy and for it to be photocopied like the Modern Microfilm Co. copy and the same exact dimensions as the Modern Microfilm Co. copy, and for the Worldcat library listing to get it wrong and BYU’s own listing to get it wrong.
I found a bunch of other problems with this book that suggests it is fake. The font size appears to be 22 point, about twice as large is the standard 12 font size for typewriters, indicating it is a photocopy. Second, why was it typewritten at all? All of Mark Peterson’s books were published with a publishing press and professional cover. Unidentifiable text bleeds onto the back of the cover page, indicating a page is missing. The convention is apparently listed for the wrong day in 1954. The only other reference I could find anywhere to this convention lists it as happening several days earlier. The book suggests Joseph Fielding Smith alleged attended this speech, so you would think there would be more references to it. The book contradicts contemporary teachings on race, including from Joseph Fielding Smith himself. Finally, a bunch of things in the speech sound very fishy. For example, he talks about a church member being forced to pick berries to avoid starvation while in real life the church had welfare services to help the poor.
7. Seer Stones
| See also: | Is Mark E. Petersen Quote Fake? |
This is a controversial subject among church scholars. After analyzing each quote having to do with seer stones, I came to the conclusion that each quote fails to support the idea that Joseph Smith used seer stones dug up from the ground to translate the Book of Mormon. This is a thoroughly unsubstantiated claim that Antimormons frequently say is “Mormon belief.” If he used a stone in a hat, it could have been taken from the Urim and Thummim, which the angel Moroni had given him to translate the gold plates. The quotes in support of the popular seer stone narrative come from Antimormon and apostate splinter-sect sources, and add up to poor evidence for the theory.
Wikipedia suggests Joseph Smith used the same stones for treasure hunting that he used for translating, and that he had dug them up from the ground: “According to Latter Day Saint theology, seer stones were believed to have been used by Joseph Smith, as well as ancient prophets, to receive revelations from God. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in the Book of Mormon translation effort… Smith owned at least two seer stones, which he had earlier employed for treasure seeking before he founded the church… From about 1819, Smith regularly practiced scrying, a form of divination in which a ‘seer’ looked into a seer stone to receive supernatural knowledge. Smith’s usual procedure was to place the stone in a white stovepipe hat, put his face over the hat to block the light, and ‘see’ the necessary information in the stone’s reflections.”
There is zero evidence for any of these claims except from hateful Antimormon sources, which are often contradictory. After analyzing each quote having to do with treasure hunting, I found that they all contradict each other, contradict settled history about Joseph Smith, and are decidedly hostile Anti-Mormon sources. Joseph Smith did not hunt for treasure. The only reliable source, from Joseph Smith himself, indicates he helped a friend look for a silver mine. That’s it. The church is in possession of a seer stone, it is true, but we don’t know what it was used for, who actually owned it, and why. It’s just a cool looking stone they have.
If Wikipedia wants to rely on these Antimormon sources, ignore their contradictions, ignore all quotes that indicate the Urim and Thummim was used to translate instead, and pretend like this is real history–that’s one thing. But for them to claim this is what ‘members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint believe” is downright false.
8. ‘Mormons’ As A Sect
Many of the problems with Wikipedia’s approach to church issues stem from their categorization of the church within Christianity. They insist on calling members of the church “Mormon,” despite the clear and explicit wishes of the church and church members. The church provided clear direction: “…please avoid using the abbreviation ‘LDS’ or the nickname ‘Mormon’ as substitutes for the name of the Church… When referring to Church members, the terms “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” or ‘Latter-day Saints’ are preferred. We ask that the term ‘Mormons’ not be used.”
But Wikipedia ignores this and consistently labels the church and church members “Mormon.” Their page on ‘Mormonism’ starts with: “This article is about the people known as ‘Mormons’. For the religion, see Mormonism. For the movement started by Joseph Smith, see Latter Day Saint movement. For the ‘Mormon Church’, see The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
| See also: | When Is It Okay To Use Label Mormon? |
President Nelson explained that the problem with the label Mormon is its “glaring omission is the absence of the Savior’s name.” Enemies of the church use the label to “expunge the sacred name of Jesus Christ” from our identity. When a foreigner asks you, “Are you American?” do you reply, “Yes, I’m Utahn”? This would imply that you consider yourself fundamentally different than people in New York or Tennessee. We would be rhetorically setting up a contour that separates us from the rest of America. This is what the media’s use of the label Mormon has done with us and Christianity. It has placed us as a church under an umbrella of sects categorized as “Mormon,” and this is how Wikipedia treats our religion, while the reality of the matter is the church is directly the church of Jesus Christ. Some mainstream Christian sects fight tooth and nail to deny us the label “Christian,” and they happily give us the label Mormon instead. This has led to the unfortunate tendency for scholars to use “Mormon” as a category all on its own, with the “LDS church” listed alonside splinter-sects such as the RLDS.
Wikipedia recognizes that “The terms Mormon and Mormonite were first used in the 1830s as pejoratives,” but then claims: “The term was soon adopted by Mormons themselves, however, and has lost its generally pejorative status.” Oh really? Their source for this claim is a lecture by Jan Shipps: ” Joseph Smith turned pejorative references to Mormonism inside out… many Saints became quite comfortable calling themselves members of the Mormon Church.” She references a letter by Joseph Smith that uses the term “Mormonism” and “Mormon people”–though she doesn’t mention later in the letter where Joseph Smith clarified: “…Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter Day Saints, is truth; for the name Mormon, and Mormonism, was given to us by our enemies, but Latter Day Saints was the real name by which the church was organized.” He was careful to stick by the “real name.” But she is right, church members did become comfortable with the name. But that doesn’t mean it generally lost its pejorative status. People still use it as an insult all the time, and the history of its origins as an offensive nickname hasn’t evaporated. Most importantly, church members never used it as a designation of a sect from Restorationism and mainstream Christianity as scholars frequently do.
9. United Order Vs. Marxism
Wikipedia incorrectly suggests a relationship between the early church’s United Order system and Marxism: “In the 20th century, LDS Church leaders, including David O. McKay, Harold B. Lee, Ezra Taft Benson, Marion G. Romney, and J. Reuben Clark, claimed that communism is a ‘counterfeit’ version of the law of consecration… Nevertheless, communal unity and equality are central tenets of the Latter Day Saint doctrine of Zion…” Marxism is considered a counterfeit version of some gospel principles, yes, but communal unity and equality were never central tenants.
Defenders of the faith are very quick to emphasize private ownership as a tenant of the United Order. This is important because Marxism and Socialism rest on public ownership of all property. We never promoted public ownership of property in the church. Property was consecrated by members, and then the church distributed “inheritances” from that to be privately owned by individuals. Private ownership or “inheritance” is by definition the opposite of communal, where property is shared alike by all members. Wikipedia is false in their claim the United Order involved communal unity. It did not.
Communal equality is when “opportunities are available to associate with others, to take up everyday social relations, to develop a style of life, and to meet in public places.” The opportunity to develop a lifestyle? Isn’t this how it is most places? Doesn’t this describe pretty much every social system other than aristocracy? Don’t we live in a system right now in America where we freely associate with other? Isn’t freedom of association guaranteed by our Constitution? Yet we aren’t Marxists. We all believe in allowing these opportunities today. So why does Wikipedia cite “communal equality” as something that relates the United Order to Communism? Marxism treats “equality” much differently than the church does. Under Marxism, the idea is that poverty exists because one person stole the wealth from another person. They considered the distribution of wealth “justice” for those who had the wealth taken away from them. The United Order does not believe this. The United Order simply considers it an act of charity from one person to consecrate that which they legitimately earned for the benefit of those who for whatever reason have less wealth. Marxists treat distributive justice as a matter of social class. It isn’t individuals preying on the poor, but entire groups of people preying on other groups of people. The United Order does not treat people this way, but considers the shortcomings, circumstances, needs, and wants of people on an individual basis.
10. Lies About Martin Harris
Wikipedia uses Antimormon sources to include negative descriptions of Martin Harris. “For example, Harris once perceived a sputtering candle to be the work of the devil. An acquaintance said that Harris claimed to have seen Jesus in the shape of a deer and walked and talked with him for two or three miles.” The story of the sputtering candle was started by Antimormon Thomas Gregg, who started his feud with Mormons in Nauvoo and had nothing to do with Martin Harris’s early associates. He did not know Martin Harris back when this supposedly took place. He made it up and printed it many years after it supposedly happened. The story of the deer comes from John A. Clark, an Antimormon Episcopalian minister in Palmyra who frequently lied about church members.
Wikipedia continues: “Even before he had become a Mormon, Harris had changed his religion at least five times.” This is a false claim. It was Antimormon E.D. Howe who started this rumor. Associates agreed Martin Harris considered only two religions: Methodist and then Universalist. Martin Harris himself claimed that he had been a member of no church prior to Mormonism. Wikipedia’s source for this claim is a Dialogue article that makes no such claim. It’s baseless.
11. Blood Atonement
Wikipedia perpetuates a popular hoax about the church known as “blood atonement.” Wikipedia claims: “In Mormonism, blood atonement is a controversial doctrine that taught that some crimes are so heinous that the atonement of Jesus does not apply. Instead, to atone for these sins the perpetrators should be killed…”
Wikipedia’s own quote of Brigham Young contradicts this, however. Church members believe that denying the Holy Ghost is a sin that the redemption of Jesus does not cover, because a person who commits this sin is too far gone to want to seek forgiveness. This is when a person receives a sure, undeniable witness of God and then still denies God. It is the only sin that is not forgiven, and it doesn’t matter whether that person is punished or not. Punishment is not an issue when it comes to this level of sin. In his 1856 sermon, Brigham Young said these people may even beg for punishment if it would mean taking away their sin. But punishment would do no good because these are sins “which it can never remit.” Besides the the unforgivable sin, there are sins that can be atoned through personal sacrifice (or divine retribution), and then thirdly, there are sins which no sacrifice could atone but require a person to “understand the doctrine of salvation” and be washed through the atonement. He treats these categories of sin as separate issues, but Antimormons combine them so that it sounds like unforgivable sins require personal sacrifice–everyone just needs to die. Wikipedia takes other snippets of quotes out of context to reinforce this false narrative.
Wikipedia continues at great length with a series of events that they baselessly associate with this fake “blood atonement” doctrine, including the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The entire article is a mash of widely varying issues such as civil capital punishment for murderers, historical events that have no relationship with church doctrine, and flagrant fear-mongering against “Mormons.” This is perhaps the most bigoted and shameful article about the church on Wikipedia. It makes “Mormons” sound violent and dangerous. They even relate it to Warren Jeffs and his disgusting adultery. Honestly, this article sounds like something Nazi propagandists would have written about Jews and other minority groups in the 1930’s.
12. First Vision Accounts
In their article on Joseph Smith’s First Vision, Wikipedia repeats the lies about Joseph Smith and treasure hunting, using Antimormons as sources for their attacks. They quote Joseph Smith’s mother Lucy Mack Smith to make it sounds like the opposite of what she was saying:
“The Smith family also practiced a form of folk magic… Both Joseph Smith, Sr. and at least two of his sons worked at ‘money digging,’ using seer stones in mostly unsuccessful attempts to locate lost items and buried treasure. In a draft of her memoirs, Lucy Mack Smith referred to folk magic: ‘I shall change my theme for the present, but let not my reader suppose that because I shall pursue another topic for a season that we stopt our labor and went at trying to win the faculty of Abrac, drawing magic circles or soothsaying, to the neglect of all kinds of business. We never during our lives suffered one important interest to swallow up every other obligation. But whilst we worked with our hands, we endeavored to remember the service of and the welfare of our souls.'”
(Wikipedia)
Read that quote from Lucy Mack Smith again. Carefully. “Let not my reader suppose that because I shall pursue another topic for a season that we stopped our labor and went at trying to win the faculty of Abrac.” In other words, “don’t think that by changing topics that I stopped laboring or started trying to win the favor of Abrac.” She was saying that they didn’t perform magic. Wikipedia takes a quote and says it is saying the opposite of what it is actually saying.
Wikipedia continues with a chart that takes several First Vision accounts and points out the differences. They quote the Tanners–who we already saw involved in the Mark E. Petersen racist quote issue–to attack Joseph Smith: “Jerald and Sandra Tanner cite the multiple versions of the First Vision as evidence that it may have been fabricated by Smith.” But the chart and this narrative is just silly. When I tell a story about the time I traveled to Washington D.C. as a kid, I don’t always include the same details. I don’t follow some script. But Wikipedia nit-picks whether he mentions being forgiven of sins in this account or whether he mentions other churches being corrupt in that account. There are zero discrepancies between Joseph Smith’s accounts. The only difference is one account where Frederick G. Williams later scribbled something out and wrote in that he was 15 years old rather than 14. A typo by someone else later on. That’s it.
In their section “Interpretation and use by the LDS Church,” Wikipedia continues to quote Antimormons. This is the pattern with Wikipedia–everything about “Mormon” history and beliefs has to come from Antimormons. What better source for “LDS Church” interpretations, right? “Three non-Mormon students of Mormonism, Douglas Davies, Kurt Widmer, and Jan Shipps, agree that the LDS Church’s emphasis on the First Vision was a ‘late development’, only gaining an influential status in LDS self-reflection late in the nineteenth century.” This is total nonsense. It was among the first writings by the church and repeatedly emphasized by church leaders. Antimormons claim early church leaders gave contradictory accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision. Well, even if that were true, doesn’t the fact that they talked about it so much indicate that it was emphasized early on in the church’s history? The narrative from Wikipedia and other Antimormon websites is just all over the place.
Wikipedia concludes with multiple different sections about how each splinter-sect from the church interprets the First Vision experience, which we don’t really learn much from. What do they say about these splinter-sects? Pretty much that they agree Joseph Smith had the First Vision… wow, thanks for the info, Wikipedia! Glad you included that! But Wikipedia doesn’t talk about each splinter-sect’s interpretation of church doctrine and history in their other pages about the church I’ve looked at. Why only the First Vision? Well, Wikipedia’s narrative is that the First Vision was used by the church to solidify the church’s leadership as authoritative in religious matters: “As the sympathetic but non-Mormon historian Jan Shipps has written, ‘When the first generation of leadership died off, leaving the community to be guided mainly by men who had not known Joseph, the First Vision emerged as a symbol that could keep the slain Mormon leader at center stage.'” So by adding in these many sections about other splinter-sects, Wikipedia is reminding us that there are multiple groups that claim to be descended from Joseph Smith’s priesthood authority, not just the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints. Is this why Wikipedia structures their article this way? Is this supposed to be an encyclopedia?? Does an encyclopedia do this–include content based on ulterior messages?
In this section, Wikipedia makes sure to call the church “LDS Church” rather than its correct name. They insist on doing this. As the first and most important element of the church being directed by God, Wikipedia really does a number to attack the church when it comes to Joseph Smith’s First Vision.
13. Criticism Of Anti-Mormons Missing
Each page about the church seems to be used as an opportunity to lie, twist the narrative, and/or quote Antimormons. Additionally, they have entire articles dedicated to explaining Antimormon narratives, neat comprehensive arguments. But what about the Antimormons themselves? When I looked at each page for individual Antimormons who were sourced in Wikipedia’s “Mormon” articles, I noticed that they treat these Antimormons with kids gloves. No sections about “controversy.” They aren’t called “Anti-Mormons.” They are “historians,” “researchers,” “writers,” and “important scholars.”
Wikipedia’s article about “Anti-Mormonism” is mostly just a rehash of a bunch of Antimormon arguments that that we find in Wikipedia’s other pages. It quickly points to polygamy as an excuse for Antimormon persecution: “The most vocal and strident opposition occurred during the 19th century, particularly during the Utah War of the 1850s, and in the second half of the century when the practice of polygamy in Utah Territory was widely considered by the U.S. Republican Party as one of the ‘twin relics of barbarism’ along with slavery.” Several falsehoods here. First, the most strident opposition did not occur during polygamy–it was during Missouri’s organized genocide of all church members in the state. Did Wikipedia forget about that, the whole extermination order? How the state government passed an official law to kill every Latter-Day Saint? That doesn’t count? Doesn’t that sound a tad strident to you? Secondly, it was Democrats and Republicans united who waged the persecution campaign against Utahns. Why do they blame it on only Republicans?
Wikipedia does not even mention the extermination order until five pages down. They blame the order on the fact that “Mormons tended to vote as a bloc, wielding “considerable political and economic influence.” What they fail to mention is that the political and economic influence in question was church members opposing slavery. The issue was slavery. Church members were trying to free the slaves, and local Antimormons didn’t like that, so they got the American government to commit genocide. But instead of giving this real reason, Wikipedia blames it on “enmity in the sometimes hard-drinking” local culture, and compares polygamy to slavery, drawing an implicit connection. Wikipedia tells us 18 Mormons died at Haun’s Mill, and that’s it. No other mention of what resulted from the Extermination Order, which actually numbered in hundreds of thousands of deaths, rampant rape of women, and theft of hundreds of thousands of acres of land. No mention of that in Wikipedia’s article, one of America’s most egregious crimes against humanity.
Wikipedia goes on to blame church members for the persecution they received in Nauvoo. They blame the victim. “In Nauvoo, Illinois, persecutions were often based on the tendency of Mormons to ‘dominate community, economic, and political life wherever they resided.'” Hey, uh, maybe that’s because “Mormons” created Nauvoo? That might have something to do with it? When a group of people build a city from nothing, they tend to dominate that community. But notice the incredible generalization here: “wherever they resided.” Who was the Wikipedia editor who added that line, Governor Boggs? Are you kidding me?
Wikipedia thus whitewashes history. They also whitewash today’s state of Antimormonism. A staggering number of Antimormon events happen all the time which Wikipedia makes no mention of, from what I’ve seen. Four people stabbed by an Antimormon when he stormed a church building last year. A fire set by an arsonist that destroyed a Stake Center in St. George Utah a few days ago. These kinds of events happen all the time, but Wikipedia pretends like they don’t exist. In their section about “violence” instead of talking about violent acts like these, Wikipedia points to alleged violence from the church: “After the destruction of the press of the Nauvoo Expositor in Nauvoo, Illinois, Joseph Smith was arrested and incarcerated…”, as if that’s the reason for violent clashes. In the recent spate of Antimormon violence over gay marriage, Wikipedia suggests the marriage issue may have had nothing to do with fake anthrax that was mailed to the church, and that the church was wrong to blame gay marriage activists: “The LDS Church blamed opponents of the marriage ban for sending the hoax mailings… LGBT rights groups, such as Equality Utah and Equality California, have spoken out against the use of violence in protests, and note that the source of the ‘white powder’ mailings has not been determined.”
Wikipedia suggests that it is unfair to call people Antimormon: “Stephen Cannon has argued that use of the label is a ‘campaign by Latter-day Saints to disavow the facts presented by simply labeling the source as ‘anti-Mormon’. Critics of the term also claim that the LDS Church frames the context of persecution in order to cultivate a persecution complex…” Just a persecution complex? Wikipedia admits a few offensive actions continue today, such as portraying temple garments “as toilet tissue,” but I don’t see anything about arson, stabbings, etc. Wikipedia further claims: “nearly every evangelical ministry, including those that actively challenge truth claims of Mormonism, vehemently condemns this sort of offensive and belligerent behavior, and further object to being placed in the same category as those few who engage in such behavior.” Oh okay, well how would Wikipedia itself feel about being placed in this same category?
There is also zero mention of prominant Antimormons, such as Mark Hofmann, who swindled people with forgeries and committed terrorist bombings because he hated the church. Why isn’t Mark Hofmann and his bombing mentioned on this page? When you visit Wikipedia’s page on Mark Hofmann, again he is treated with kid’s gloves. No mention of opposing the church in the opening paragraph, just that he created “documents related to the history of the Latter Day Saint movement.” You have to scroll down the page to find out that “he had lost his faith in the LDS Church when he was about fourteen.” But Wikipedia really glosses over Mark Hofmann’s Antimormon motivations for his attacks on the church and church members.
Something else missing from Wikipedia’s page on Anti-Mormonism is how faithful members have responded to them. They provide a few generic quotes from church leaders about being inspired by Satan and sowing seeds of doubt. But nothing really specific. Church leaders have talked about what inspires Antimormon thought and behavior in great detail. Defenders of the faith, such as we here at Conflict Of Justice, have also explored the subject in great detail. Wikipedia provides a section titled “apologetic”–which is technically a false label for what we and many other defenders do. But again, nothing specific. I have yet to find on Wikipedia any kind of coverage of defenses for the church. It’s like we don’t exist.
14. Leading Antimormon Editor Is Wikipedia Editor
What about the editors who are behind this? Who are they? Why do they do it? Usually they use pseudonyms so we don’t know who they are. One major flaw in Wikipedia is the anonyminity of its editors. We already saw how Wikipedia editor “Sesmith” perpetuated a hoax about Cumorah and petitioned in favor of a page on “Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” But the name of one Wikipedia editor caught my eye:
NewNameNoah.
NewNameNoah, aka Mike Norton, is a leader of the Ex-Mormon community who reportedly sneaks into the temple to record footage of sacred temple ceremonies and post them on the internet. He “forged and distributed temple recommends to others” so they can sneak into the temple as well. After he was arrested for tresspassing on church grounds, he reportedly gave temple recommends to porn stars to make “lesbian sex video filmed in LDS temples,” though he later reportedly walked back on the video of porn part.
Is this who Wikipedia has as an editor?
If you look at Wikipedia’s page on “prayer circle (Mormonism)”, you find that it was edited by someone named NewNameNoah on June 15, 2018 and January 8, 2018. I don’t know if this is the same person as Mike Norton or just someone else using the name NewNameNoah. But the edit in question is the addition of a screen-capture from inside the temple from a secretly made videos. It shows a group of church members, who doubtlessly did not consent to being filmed, and was filmed without the church’s permission on private property. Why was someone with this name NewNameNoah allowed to make this edit, and why has it remained for over a year? Is that Wikipedia’s policy now? To use images acquired by sneaking onto private property and filmed without people’s permission, incredibly offensive images that violate a religion’s sacred space? Just having this page in the first place is offensive, as church members have covenanted not to discuss the ordinances of the temple outside the temple. It is akin to waving temple garments around like toilet tissue. But to include this image is unbelievably offensive.
But it comes as no surprise when you read the pervasive lies and appeal to Antimormon bigotry throughout Wikipedia’s content. Should we be surprised if it turns out a leader of the Antimormon community, a guy who is even too extreme for the taste of many Antimormons, is an editor for Wikipedia’s content about the church? Who are these editors really? Why is it negative content using Antimormons as sources? Why did Wikipedia’s leadership select Antimormons to be thought-leaders? Why are Wikipedia’s pages top results on Google searches?