User talk:KHM03/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is ARCHIVE 4 for my talk page....

11 Oct 05 through 2 Nov 05.

Contents 1 Wikifanatic 2 Admin? 3 Images 4 Re User:195.144.130.1 5 Criticisms of Christianity/new 6 Thefteration! 7 Thank you 8 Grace of God 9 Restorationism 10 Hi 11 Re:Jesus 12 Bible 13 Thanks 14 God-man 15 Two recent edits of yours 16 Thanks 17 WP:RFA/SV 18 Wikiproject 19 RFA for Johntex 20 My RFA

[edit] Wikifanatic

Eh, he was just having a bad day. We all do. He got all gushy on me and several other people last night on IRC. Karmafist 17:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admin?

Are you sure you don't want to be an admin? I'd really like to nominate you. You certainly have most of the credentials. Borisblue 20:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Ah, the image crusades! There is a push to delete all non-sourced images; apparently, the gold star was deleted because I didn't source it, and I deleted the SEA because I don't remember the source. Anyhow, I have reuploaded the gold star and properly sourced it, and I found a replacement for the SEA. It is now the Brother Roger Strides in Ecuminsim Award. ;-) -- Essjay · Talk 21:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re User:195.144.130.1

Appears to have stopped now. The pattern of the vandalism seems to suggest that it is from some school IP. Let's hope their computer lesson is over. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of Christianity/new

Hi KHM03. Thanx for the message. I am not that fluent on the topic but surely balant POVs are very clear to spot. So, I'd do my best spotting those from both sides. I hope editors of these kind of articles try to include sources more often to ease the work. Maybe I, too, have a POV regarding those articles (that I don't fancy them) but I'd never try to impose my POV. Cheers -- Svest 19:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

[edit] Thefteration!

Don't worry about it, I've been "robbed" a lot lately! ;-) -- Essjay · Talk 23:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw; it hasn't done anything for about an hour, if it starts again, I'll nail it. -- Essjay · Talk 22:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your support on my RfA. It is sincerely appreciated. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grace of God

K, I believe you when you state that the Grace of God is available to all. However, my statement is that when you claim someone is not Christian or "the mission field", you are also stating that the Grace of God is not in their life, but only avaiable to them if they convert to "tradional Christianity". For example, when you state Mormons are not Christian, aren't you also saying they can not know Christ as their personal Savior and still be Mormon?

I have been a student of religion all my life. It has never ceased to amaze me at how far churches and ministers of respective churches go to identify those who are not "saved" enough or at all. It is the mind set that burned people at the stake, that enables individuals to feel that persecution of others because of their beliefs is acceptable, and to further discriminate in our day.

In the vast majority of Protestanism one must simply accept Christ as his/her Savior to be saved by the Grace of God...except if you are Mormon. If you are Mormon, then you not only must accept Jesus as your personal Savior, but you must accept the creeds of man created 325 years after Christ and then you can be saved.

The essentials as you call them are really a requirement to be part of the tradtional or historic Christian church, but certainly not a defnition of being Christian that can be demonstrated using the New Testament. As a LDS, I reject the historic Christian church because I believe it is in a state of apostasy. Though I study the writings and thoughts of many members of other churches and respect their witness of Christ and am strengthened by them, I have no interest in joining their respective churches. They all have some truth in them and attempt to follow Christ as best as they understand it. Storm Rider 22:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider -- The grace of God is indeed available to all...I urge you to read the Prevenient grace article; this is one of the key doctrines of Methodism. No one living is outside of God's grace, whether they call Jesus "Lord" or not, whether they are Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Mormon, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, or whatever. What someone believes is not relevant as to whether they experience God's prevenient grace...everyone does, whether or not they acknowledge that grace or the God who provides it.

I have steadfastly refused in my ministry to identify those who are "out", or "unsaved", or "damned". I simply will not do it; that's God's prerogative, not mine. I can say, as a traditional Christian, that some are saved. Profession of Jesus Christ as Lord is a testament to that unchanging truth. But...the Church has defined that proclamation as the proclamation of Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament and further identified by the Church as the second person of the Trinity. These are not my words...they belong to the Church Universal, dating back to (at least) the Nicene Creed-era.

You are free, as a human being, to reject the wisdom and authority of the Church. You are free to profess any faith you desire. But the Church (not KHM03) has determined that those outside traditional Christianity are the mission field, whether we like that or not. It's just the way it is.

For example, if a Roman Catholic or a Presbyterian desires to join a United Methodist Church, we accept their baptism as legitimately Christian and just have them take membership vows. If a Mormon desires to join, on the other hand, they must be baptized, as the UMC does not recognize Mormon baptism as Christian. Why? Because Mormons believe certain things (which you would know about better than I) that the Church feels are incompatible with Christianity.

Now, having said that, I pray that there are many Mormons who are "saved", and many Methodists, and many Buddhists, etc. What saves is the grace of God in Jesus Christ, and one can be saved even if one fails to affirm the traditional Christian faith. Affirming traditional Christianity might make it easier to declare some who are surely "in", but no one can declare who is surely "out". That's up to God, and God alone.

I hope this helps; it is never my desire to be judgmental, but I always need to be honest. If I can clear anything up, let me know. KHM03 11:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

K, I think I have a good understanding of your position and in most instances do not disagree. I also appreciate your desire to be honest and not to back away from your beliefs. That is commendable. However, I do disagree with the terminology you use. Historical or traditional Christianity is not in a position to say what is and what is not Christian. To define someone or some group as non-Christian is to state that Christ is not active in their life/lives and that is an impossibility for anyone to say. To use this logic, one must necessarily put themselves in the place of a judge; who is "saved" and who is isn't. We are simply incapable of seeing and knowing the heart of man and thus incapable of knowing whether someone "knows" Christ and follows Him or not.

I am perfectly comfortable with a group saying "Mormons do not meet the standards of tradtionial/historical Christianity". That is a perfectly defensible position and it is true. Mormons do not meet the standards of traditional Christianity because Mormons believe there was an apostasy that required a restoration of the chruch of Christ. However, to state they are not Christian goes too far and puts one's judgement on a par with God's. The creeds created 325 years after Christ are what tradtional Christianity must believe, but it is not the definition of a Christian. A Christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ, that He offered His life to pay the price of our sins, that He rose the third day that we might live again, and that His atoning sacrifice makes it possible to live with Heavenly Father.

The creeds attempt to summarize a specific interpretation of scripture, but it is only one interpretation of scripture. Further, they go further than scripture does and attempt to address mysteries the New Testament does not address. Just as you must be honest and faithful to your beliefs, so must I. Though I admire many of early, tradtional church fathers and so many good Christian people today, my admiration does not prevent me from also being a faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is here that I find a fullness to the Gospel that I was not able to find in other Christian chruches. For me, it was the difference between a diet of milk and a diet with additional meat. I found more truth in the LDS church.

In closing, thank you for the distinctions you made above. I hope that you will support using the same terminology in the article. Though it may not be a significant difference to you, it means a great deal to me. Calling me a heretic means we have a disagreement in beliefs, but calling me non-Christian is a slur that attempts to negate my relatinship with Christ and that is unacceptable. Storm Rider 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider -- I think that (as expected) our differences, despite our similarities, probably derive from radically different theologies of "the Church". I do not believe that there was an apostasy which separated the "traditional/mainstream" Church from the Truth. I think that the Church Univsersal (which on WP we define as the three main branches), while imperfect, are the Body of Christ which will exist until the end of time. We have a long way to go, certainly, before we are at our most faithful expression. But the Church is the Body of Christ, nevertheless. Therefore, the creeds and the defining beliefs of the early Church (i.e., Trinity, Incarnation, etc.) are definitive beliefs, since the Spirit moves in (and sometimes in spite of) the Church. The Mormons (and other "Restorationist" groups) are incorrect in my view in claiming that they have "reclaimed" the true gospel; it was never lost (in my opinion).

"Mainstream Christianity" (which I typically call the Church Universal in the real world!) is called to discernment, called to evangelize those who are "not saved" or who may not be saved. That is why Mormons are considered the mission field...not because they are going to Hell, but because only those who proclaim the "genuine" (for lack of a better word) Jesus can know for sure. Again, I hope there are lots of atheists, Buddhists, Mormons, etc. in the Kingdom, but can't say for sure unless someone professes Jesus (as understood by his Church). Yet again, I think it's a mistake to say who is condemned...but it is an equally sad mistake not to try and evangelize those who are outside the Church Universal.

And, again, to say that someone is outside the Church and is a non-Christian is not saying that Christ is not active in their lives...far from it! The doctrine of prevenient grace teaches us that Christ is always active in someone's life...whether they are Methodist, Roman Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, or Atheist. I believe a billion percent that Jesus is active in your life via prevenient grace, just as he is active in mine. Praise God!

I believe (and could be wrong) that the problem with Mormonism from the POV of "mainstream Christianity" is that several of the additional doctrines affirmed by Mormons invalidate the essentials of the gospel. Every group has its distinctives, to be sure (Methodists have prevenient grace, Calvinists have unconditional election, the Roman Catholics have the Pope and all that goes with him, the Eastern Orthodox have icons, etc.). But all affirm those agreed upon universal essentials (again, Trinity, Incarnation, etc.). My understanding is that the Mormon "distinctives" threaten or invalidate those "universal essentials". I could be wrong; I'm no Mormon scholar...that's just what I've been told by folks smarter than I!

That's the problem in the Christianity article. According to what most people consider Christianity, Mormonism (et al) deny "essentials" and are thus "outside" the Church Universal. I'm surprised that you prefer "heretic" to "non-Christian", especially when the Church considers them one and the same thing! But the Church Universal by and large does consider Mormonism to be non-Christian. That's not a POV observation...they do consider Mormons to be outside. Now, the Church is of course a very POV institution, but for WP to state that mainstream Christianity considers Mormons to be non-Christians is just a statement of fact. (It's also interesting that you shared your concern that the creeds "...go further than scripture does...", considering that this is the precise reason why Mormonism hasn't been received by the Church Universal...they add to & go further than Scripture!)

Let me say that I rejoice that you feel you have experienced God's grace...whether as a LDS or anything else. God is so, so good! And he never stops calling to us, reaching for us, loving us! That's really good news! We can agree to disagree regarding Mormonism & mainstream, traditional Christianity. And, if you prefer "heretic" to "non-Christian", that's fine with me. I'm not married to either label. Hope this helps and that, in trying to fairly represent the very POV position of the Church, I haven't seemed to personally judgmental...that hasn't been my intention. Peace...KHM03 18:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is a disconnect in our respective definitions of "the Church". The mere fact that a group of men got together 325 years after Christ and argued for months about what is doctrine at the behest of a political leader in order to achieve his political goals is evidence that there may be some room for concern. As I said, they were a group of men creating doctrines of men. The issue is definitional; historical Christain vs. Christian. Without clearly stating the definition of the words being used, we will have a problem.

For me, the term heretic does not deny my belief in Christ. As I said before, it implies that there is a disagreement about beliefs. Calling me non-Christian is highly offensive and I would hope that when you speak about or to Latter-day Saints you would refrain from using that term. Maybe if you would put yourself in my shoes, and I termed you non-Christain. Yes, you would still know that you were a disciple of Christ, you would feel some pity for me using such a term, but you would eventually bristle because that to which you have dedicated your life, Jesus Christ, is denigrated by another who claims to follow the Lord.

Do I like either term? No, I would prefer to be called a Latter-day Saint. However, I understand the need of traditional Christians to feel compelled to strike out at the chruch. Sadly, it has ever been the nature of our relationship with each other. On a brighter note, no problem with feeling the need to proselytize among Mormns, we certainly will not stop sending missionaries into all the world to preach the joy of the restored gospel of Christ.  :) Storm Rider 19:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restorationism

K, I read your comment in the Christianity talk regarding Restorationism. A distinction may be in order. Mormonism did not orgininate or descend from the restoration movement. Rather, it professes to be a church that was restored directly by Jesus Christ through a prophet. It belongs in the Restoration Movement because it professes an apostasy. However, it unlike other/most restorationist groups that believe they could recover the restored faith/church through limiting the gospel to only that found in the scriptures as they understood them. JW's, Campbellites, Church of Christ and others take the concept of sola scriptura to a complete new level whereas LDS believe that the restoration required a direct intervention from God. Storm Rider 21:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Mormonism as a historical movement began as part of "restorationism"...which was a movement in American religion which sought to regain "life" in religion by getting "back to basics" and returning in some way to "basic Christianity". The idea was to "restore" Christianity to what it was meant to be, in the light of compromised denominations (like my own) which had in many ways become too "establishment". From a strict historic POV, Mormonism is part of that. Yes, it professes direct revelation from Jesus...whether or not that is true is a matter of faith. But when Mormonism arose and the what the historic factors were that led to its creation are a matter of the historic record. Fair? KHM03 23:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel like I keep passing you without gaining understanding, I must be a very poor communicator. Let me try again. Mormonism began during period when several other groups began in the 1800's. All of the groups believed that there was an apostasy wherein the true gospel of Christ had been lost. They felt the Reformation was a good starting point, but just did not go far enough. The difference between Mormonism and the other groups is significant:

1) In 1820 a 14 year old boy prayed for guidance to join the true chruch. The answer he received from God the Father and Jesus Christ was to join none of them. Joseph Smith was not an educated man, nor was he ever educated as judged by the world.

2) Ten years later the Church of Christ (later the name was changed to The Chruch of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints) was founded after the restoration of the priesthood, the publication of the Book of Mormon, a second witness that Jesus was the Christ.

3) The restored church was founded, as directed by Christ, with the same structure as in the ancient chruch, prophets, apostle, pastors, teachers, etc.

4) Personal revelation is one of the cornerstone's of the church. One does not gain a testimony by reading scripture, but by the witness of the Holy Spirit.

The other churches all claimed that the truthfulness of the Gospel of Christ could be regained by a closer interpretation of the scripture. No authority needed to be restored and no "restoration" was claimed. Only a "better" interpretation of scripture.

It is entirely appropriate to put Mormonism within the Restoration Movement, but it is not appropriate to state it was "spawned", descended, grew out of, the restoraton movement. Joseph Smith was not motivated to get back to basics, he was responding to direction from God. In summary, Mormonism claims to be responding to direct intervention and others claim to be responding to a dissatisfaction with doctrine and spirituality of existing religions. The difference may be fine in the eyes of some, but it is not a subtle difference.

I have purposely left off all the caveats about this being a conversation of faith, beliefs, etc. I assume that we both know from which position we are speaking. Storm Rider 23:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your language...that Restorationism didn't "spawn" Mormonism. I didn't mean that. I meant that Mormonism was a part of this movement...not that Smith was inspired by Campbell, or vice versa. But the same feeling was "in the air"...that Christianity needed a kick in the pants. Smith felt that he had been spoken to by God largely because of the "stale" nature of American religion. I think we agree. KHM03 23:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

PS - I'll betcha that the other Restorationist groups all felt that they were directed by God, just like Smith...and Luther, Calvin, Wesley, John Paul II, etc. KHM03 23:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Without a doubt, but none of them professed a similar restoration. They all carried the concept of sola scriptura to a new, more stringent level. If scripture did not say it, then it was not said. Scholarly dissertation was anathema. My personal viewpoint, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Campbell, and John Paul II were all inspired. That would also be the viewpoint of the LDS Church. Storm Rider 00:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear KHM03, can you please have another word with Storm rider. He seems not to understand what my edit on Christianity was about. Thanks. Str1977 11:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi K, I wrote the UMCOR article you put an image on. Thanks =) The article was for a class project so it wasn't the greatest; I hope it was still to your liking. Anyway, the real reason I am posting: I am an undergrad senior looking for a seminary, and I see you are a UMC Elder. From what I read on your page, we seem similar theologically. Any thoughts on good seminaries? I'm considering Duke and Emory right now, but I haven't made any decisions. Feel free to email me if you have time. dancey(at)uiuc(dot)edu. Take care. -Drew

[edit] Re:Jesus

I don't disagree with the point of your recent edit (about racial artistic perspectives)...I just think it could be worded a bit better. Would you mind clarifying it a bit, when you have an opportunity? It also might help if someone decides to get rid of it. Thanks for considering...KHM03 23:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you...that article could never stand as was, I just wanted to address the topic...which I plan to do immediately. Thank you so much for these comments. Molotov (talk)
23:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

And dopuble thanks for the support on my (not successful) RfA.

Take care, Molotov (talk)
23:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bible

Why thank you. I use a combo of CDVF, #wikipedia-en-vandalism on freenode, and User:Sam Hocevar's godmode-light.js. Good to see someone appreciates my work, RC patrol is often a thankless job. :) -Greg Asche (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

KHM03, thanks for your support on my RFA. I very much appreciate it. I've enjoyed working with you on several of the Christianity articles. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to ask. See you around! —thames 18:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

And may I add my RfA thanks as well. I hope that we'll have more of an opportunity to collaborate on articles in the future. --Gareth Hughes 20:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] God-man

I'm not sure if you're watchung the AFD God man page, but I edited the article, making it accurate and, clearly, notable. Would you consider withdrawing your nomination? Thanks.Gator1 18:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two recent edits of yours

Hi. Please don't remove AfD tags before the discussion at AfD is finished (here), even if you are the nominator. Also, please be careful in using an edit summary such as "rvv" when you are removing a new paragrpah contributed by another editor (here). You and I may agree that the paragraph doesn't belong in the article, but see Wikipedia:Vandalism for a definition of vandalism. One reason that this is important is because of the three revert rule. Thanks. Jkelly 16:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi...at the request of Gator1, I removed my AfD nomination, and we subsequently agreed to redirect the article. If I violated an AfD policy about which I am unaware, I apologize; I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that I had that authority as the nominator. I have no problem with a disambiguation page...is the cartoon character a real cartoon character? Also, I removed the stuff on the Christianity article as it was nonsensical, non-wiki-formatted, and placed by a vandal with a talk page full of warnings...it wasn't meant to be a legitimate contribution to the article; it was vandalism (the user has since been blocked). Thanks for the heads ups...KHM03 18:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"God-man" is a recurring character in Tom the Dancing Bug, as another person at AfD pointed out, but I wouldn't suggest that someone should write an article about the character. If the page does become a disambig, a mention of the character with a wikilink to the strip is certainly enough. Cheers. Jkelly 19:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

But I rightfully get angry because everything I do goes unappreciated. I am convinced that Friday treats vandals better than me! Molotov (talk)
19:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFA/SV

Accept my thanks for your support at my RFA. I hope I have been able to sufficiently answer any outstanding questions regarding my conduct in the Arbcom matter. Sincerely, -St|eve 04:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject

Hi, I wondered if you might be interested in joining a long term Wikiproject

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Biblical Criticism

Its goal is to increase the amount of information originating from academia in biblical articles, as it is noticably lacking at the moment, this includes

• Textual criticism
• Critical theories
• Mention, and summary, of historical commentaries (i.e. commentaries interpreting the subject from people thousands of years ago)
• Information concerning change in interpretation, over tim
• Interpretations from historic groups cast as heretics by the mainstream, including esoteric traditions (such as from groups like those responsible for the Book of Enoch)
• Interpretations from historic groups who were once the mainstream, but where the interpretation is no longer supported by the mainstream.
• Apologetics (from academic sources, rather than local religious people)

This also includes transferring the information present in the public domain Jewish Encyclopedia, which is not present in Wikipedia. This work is over 100 years old, and so the information needs updating once copied over, e.g. by taking account of subsequent scholarship (e.g. Martin Noth, Richard Friedman, Israel Finkelstein).

--francis 15:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFA for Johntex

Hello, I want to thank you for your support of my RfA. I look forward to running into you again around the project. Best, Johntex\^talk 00:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA till the end.

Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.

KJV rules! :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)