User talk:Vegasbright

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Thanks for your LDS edits. Hang in there, read up on our policies, and you will be a great contributor! I apologize that many of your initial edits are not sticking. Just hang in there. Tom Haws 22:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

What was/was not included in my edits that I should include in the future besides feigning love for the LDS church? vegasbright
Sorry you felt/feel jaded. Please realize that a number of us that are involved in the WP:LDS are LDS, "Mormon" Latter Day Saint, and Non-Mormon and a fair number of us are published researchers. Most of our edits and contributions come from the most current research available, whereas a few of your contributions came from old, outdated and unreliable anti-Mormon sources, not primary research or reliable primary documents. I believe that the Tanners would even disagree with a number of your edits.

We hope you will continue to contribute to Latter Day Saint-related articles as we need more non-Mormon views in the project. We do not seek to proselytize, convert readers of wikipedia to the church or provide an apologetic forum, but rather provide the most accurate information available on the Latter Day Saint movement. That is why Temple information is still contained in wikipedia, as well as other "eyesores" to Mormonism such as polygamy, the safety society and the MM Massacre. This is not a belief-based encyplopedia, but one that promotes "truth" and accuracy with a NPOV. Happy editing. Hope you stick around. -Visorstuff 21:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archeaology and the Book of Mormon disagreement

Specifics please, not generalizations. You are suppressing a point of view by focusimg your argument on propping up the BOM in a way that is hardly scholarly or based on reality. Maybee it works for FARMS and other quazi-intellectual organizations but I cannot see your point of view having any credit. This doc is speaking directly from the pulpit and is designed to convert individuals to mormonism, not from a mixed point of view. Science and Archaeology are the last thing associated with your edits to my edits. I am reading a mormon infomercial when reading this article.

BTW, I have enough authority as anyome of the populous or even more so. It just so happened that I was LDS for 25 years, served an honorable mission to Minnesota, and although I do not believe the LDS church - let alone whether God exists - , I do believe facts are being overlooked and supressed by a bad interpretation on what points of view are allowed. I do not think you are doing this on purpose - or maybee you are. My opinion has changed. If true scholarship is followed you would accept criticism. But I would not hold my breath.

You repeatedly invalidate links to articles that disprove your point yet accept vapid and assinine articles linking to jefflindsay? No skeptic edit makes it into this article. If I have to get others involved in this then I will see if I can muster up some individuals to oppose your capitalization of this article. If not then it is not worth the time and trouble to sit and play petty games with petty mormons. Damn this is just like my mission - I am surrounded by individuals who need to be right 100% of the time, and if a dissenting opinion arises it is pushed down using poor logic, bad assumptions and total lack of understanding concerning the subject matter. vegasbright


I am not trying to start some big hoopla over a wiki page. If I cant edit it using facts from the Tanners site, D Michael quinn, Sunstone, historical records and other researched, documented and reliable sources though then who wins the opinion bias for this page? The LDS church - one voice out of many other dissenting voices from documents, personal experiences, and historical accounts. vegasbright

BTW, I am familiar with a Tom Haws in Minneapolis. Is this you? vegasbright

Hi again, Vegasbright. I'm in Gilbert, Arizona (isn't that predictable?). As Visorstuff said, we honestly want the participation of intelligent contributors with access to and knowledge of the latest information on Mormonism-related topics. I don't know if you already read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (our "absolute and non-negotiable" non-bias policy), but that explanation gives a background for what we are doing or need to do here. Some ideas: 1) read that article (WP:NPOV), 2) talk directly with some of the non-LDS participants in our project (User:Wesley, User:John Hamer, User:Alai) to get their point of view on your ideas, 3) bring up your specific concerns at WP:LDS. We don't claim we are perfect in our bias avoidance, and that is why we welcome you in good faith to the project. I think if you will build some relationships of respect with the project members, and in the process hone your presentation, you will be able to be a great asset to Wikipedia (the world's largest encyclopedia) as you improve the quality of this area. Tom Haws 17:28, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit explanations

Great - I'm glad you have interest in this topic - we hope you do contribute to the WP:LDS - let me give specifics that you requested, but first want to address some other comments you made. We do not seek to supress a point of view in any way, but seek to provide accurate information, not to promote speculations, theories, guesses, and "faith promoting" rumors. For examples, see Blood Atonement, Adam-God theory, and Mountain Meadows Massacre as well as others. We want you to add in your Point of view as a former member - as this will help to round out the articles from a cultural standpoint. As I stated above and at Talk:Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon#April_2005_concerns_about_bias, from a scholarly or testimony standpoint, I welcome all views on the Book of Mormon and the history of the Latter Day Saint movement and I do not feel a need to apologize for the teachings of the Church. They are what they are (even if culturally they are something else). However, as a former member of the Church - you probably realize that what most Mormons believe is not always what the Church teaches. I welcome any critical standpoint - as long as it is accurate. In particular, one of my goals is to clean up the "cultural beliefs" that show up on these pages that are not doctrinally or historically accurate. Too many faith promoting rumors and promulgated falsities already exist both within and without the church. It is itneresting to see that they all seem to come from a relatively few sources, which are easily identified, but i digress. Back to the critical viewpoint...
For example, many members of the Church believe that Lamanites are THE ancestors of the Native Americans, however, you and I both know how scholars in the Church "split hairs" on the topic and the General Authorities have not commented on the matter aside to say "principal ancestors" which could have a million different meanings - from primary to chief, from most important to first - a ton of connotations. Scholars within the church and without tend to divide into four main camps on this issue. Also. it is silly to generalize and say that "Mormons believe that Lamanites (or Nephites, or Jaredites) are the only ancestors of the American Indians - or that their DNA is the same as modern Jews (which has a hundred issues with it - from the massive conversions of modern Jews from russia, to mitochondial DNA similarieties, to the study that was not as publicized but came out six months after the Thomas Murphy BOM-DNA study. This DNA study said all inhabitants of the earth (including Austrailian aborigines) have one common acestor that lived in the 1200s A.D.). Anyway, I'm not here to discuss that point, as it is not my expertise, however, it is there to show the disconnect between Cultural Mormonism and Doctrinal Mormonism, and how complex "science" can be. I do say it is silly to state that the Church believes this or that, when there has been no official pronouncement on the matter and the issue is very complex from a scholarly POV, but very simple from a cultural standpoint.
Second, I do not keep up to date on FARMS research. It does a good job for what it is for it was designed for. I guess I should, but I don't have time with my own research going on. Third, I welcome other standpoints. Please reference the Tanners, Quinn and Sunstone. I am as aware of their current research, if not more so, as I am FARMS. The problem is that Quinn is known for statements such as Young of SMith "must have believed" asserting that he knew what they were thinking. He is a solid naturalistic historian, I have my issues with him and will edit out his theories, but leave in the message of his research - and document that it came from him. We had one issue a few months ago taht about half of the Joseph Smith article was attributed to Quinn's research, and we had to provide additional sources. We cannot rely on secondary documents - we must rely on primary sources - and I encourage you to get access to them, but Quinn, Tanners and Sunstone and others will provide a chunck of that data you want to include for what accomplish in the WP:LDS and will be a good starting point. Again, I'd look at recent Mormon studies from North Carolina, Illinois and other universitites that are critical to the church that have scholarly merit. You also mention historial records. Please add them in. Primary docs are sorely lacking in these pages.
Finally, you said "I am not trying to start some big hoopla over a wiki page." If a big hoopla needs to be made, let's do it and get the issues resolved. I do not see the Wiki as a proseltyzing tool, but rather a place to provide accurate information. If you think there is a contest to "win the opinion bias" I'm sorry - there is not. I think you will find most of us erring on the side of inclusion to keep the information added in by editors, until it can be proven or disproven and then if it needs to be edited out an explanation is given as to why - always allowing for the information to be re-introduced if it is relevenant or proven accurate. That is the awesome benefit of wikipedia. We all work to make sure the information is accurate - not a tool to convince, but an accurate reflection. That is what we seek. Your contribution is needed - and would be invaluable from a cultural standpoint given your situation.
Now on to the specifics: You say: "You are suppressing a point of view by focusimg your argument on propping up the BOM in a way that is hardly scholarly." On the contrary, I am focusing on a number or research areas, relying on multiple sources and scholarly works/research for my basis. I understand that other editors are as well. Let's look at some of your edits and explain the issues:
Martin Harris. You added in teh following: "The assumption that he never recanted his belief in the LDS faith is not thoroughly established, but instead is assumed by those around him when he died who happened to be LDS. These individuals (and only these individuals) told others that he affirmed his LDS faith." I changed to reflect that he had signed affidavits, he had legal representation as part of those "individuals" that he asked to witness from a legal POV. The statement was grossly inaccurate. I have copies of written statements and affidavits in my possession proving otherwise.
Second, Archeaology and the Book of Mormon: you wrote: "The belief that ancient Israelites traveled to the Americas and populated in a short time the whole continent still persists today int he LDS culture." I actually think this should be added back in to the article in another place. However, culturally, the Ensign has had a number of articles dealing with this from as far back as 1980. Sorenson and others believe that the whole events of the Book of Mormon area was relatively a small area, such as the eastern shore of deleware or the Yucatan. I find very little evidence in modern Mormon research published in FARMS, Sunstone or the Ensign that support the Phelps' and Pratt's Panama theory, but rather the contrary. If Mormons do believe this, then they don't read Church publications. However, I do think this should be added back in under a section titled, "cultural beliefs of Book of Mormon archaelology" that discusses the history of Mormon belief on the subject and the left-over beliefs, particularly among mormon teens and good-intentioned missionaries. However, that was not the appropriate place to discuss cultural issues in a part of the article about the history of the Book of Mormon peoples. Any editor would have edited that out of that place in a scholarly work. As far as Horses, elephants and other issues, please see the supported links and associated studies. The artilcle discusses that the Book of mormon is a matter of faith, not to be proven, and here are what current research in the field show both pro-and critical to the book of mormon. I firmly believe it cannot be proven or disproven, any more than if the man jesus lived. We have fragments, but that is all. No "hard evidence" either way. Anyone claiming such does not understand how Archeological theories are created. It is my personal opinion that when Mormon and Moroni say that the Lamanites sought to destroy every bit of evidence of the Nephite civilization, that the Lamanites probably did a good job and not much survived. But that is my theory, and I don't believe we'll ever find much to prove it. You may also want ot read my comments on the talk page Talk:Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon#April_2005_concerns_about_bias. DNA studies is not archealogical, but rather should fit in a different article, however, it is addressed here: Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon#Genetic_studies
Third, your edit at Reformed_Egyptian. You link to www.exmormon.org. No subpage. If I go to exmormon.org does not link to Linguists, archaeologists arguments as to why the BoM is disproven. Rather there is one link to a DNA study on the home page. Please add in the sub-page and at the appropriate place, and the link will stay. I also changed your statment "Writeup on how joseph smith wrote the book of mormon" (which statement denotes that it is not a theory, but that the author obviously was tehre and knows it is the only way it could have happened) to a more neutral, yet accurate: "One theory of how Joseph Smith could have written The Book of Mormon," to reflect that this is one of many such theories (and obviouly this one is held in high regard by you).
Hope this summary helps. We hope you stick around and contribute. Your POV would be unique and needed, however, like us, you must realize that wikipedia is not a missionary tool to convert to Mormonism or away from it. We must be factual and as neutral as possible accordint to wikipedia policies. I do hope you stick around and help, and that this summary is helpful. -Visorstuff 17:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To believe that the church has never taught that the amerindians of any people shows just how much misunderstanding of mormon history, mormon myth and mormon culture you hold. The plain fact is that JS to Hinckley has taught that the amerindians are ALL descended from the israelites. Yes, there are individuals who dance around the subject but ask any mormon youth, grandmother, etc where the "indians" came from and they will tell you the BOM mythology. Your dancing around the subject. If given a blank slate to write this article again it would be one sentence: "There is no evidence supporting an israelite migration to the americas suggested by the book of mormon". There. End of article.

You dance around the subject because you know the BOM is far from being able to be supported by research and history yet you persist in the belief that inference means research. And excuse me, but your revisionist view will get you excommunicated, as I nearly was when I suggested that not all indians are lamanites. You are on track to learning the actual history of mesoamerica but you are so opinionated as to be laughable. I have news for you and that is that the culture IS the church. The overwhelming majority of members believe in the literal BOM. Anything else is based on backpeddaling, etc. You know this, so why stand up for something that cannot be proved true. Instead you need to realise that the BOM cannot be proved correct yet you infer otherwise. vegasbright

I do not wish to argue credentials with you - or argue at all. I am fully qualified to discuss archealogical and historical research on church history from my own training. I would be curious to know your educational background. Are you a scientist? A researcher? Have you spent time looking at the primary data? If you could let me know your background I can tailor my comments in this dialogue much better and get to the point faster. I understand the difference between a theory, hypothesis and a fact. I am no better than you, and I am sure you are more qualified in your field of expertise than I, but this happens to be one of mine. But that is another topic.
When you start personally attacking me, and suggesting I am revisionist, that bothers me. I'm sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately, I have many statements from throughout LDS history that support my views. You have a few recent isolated studies that have not stood the test of time, and are in fact as I have stated before, have already been called into question. You mention that I will get "excommunicated" - I pray I never do. I have a much more traditional view of things than I believe you think I do. I'm sorry if you've taken it that way or misunderstood me. Make no mistake about it. I do believe that the Book of Mormon peoples are the "principle ancestors" of the American Indians, and that Joseph Smith translated it from ancient golden plates by the power of god and that the history is accurate and factual. I just do not pretend to think I know exactly what "principle" means, nor have the knowledge that you think you do as to know all the answers. I do realize what has been taught by the Church, and what is not. Common belief is different than cultural belief - and there is a BIG difference. Yet another reason for the correlation program. Many in your situation think that the church has watered down doctrines because of correlation, as it is different that what you were taught as a child, however, on the contrary, they have been trying to weed out the beliefs introduced to the church by the speculative few that are commonly believed as people love the sensational, but not taught as doctrine. The brethren have made many comments about this, and scholars and researchers in and out of the Church divide on many points of belief. The older I get the more I realize how little I know - and I think this applies to many of the "truths" that you thought/think are taught by the church and are not. Again, another subject.
When I read statements from Smith, Phelps and Orson Pratt that say "we can suppose" or "from this can believe" I take it as that - a supposition, not the end all on the matter. Even BH Roberts said other people lived here in America prior to white europeans - as does the Book of Mormon. I don't get your reading of Church history - let's focus on what was actually said. If you go back and read early church periodicals on the matter, they offer "evidences," not the end all statement of fact on the matter. In fact, the only "statement of fact" I know of is that Phelps wrote in his journal the latitute that he said he heard Smith say he "believed" the Lehites landed (interesting that no other entry recorded the same from the same meeting, but again, who knows why?). I am fully aware that there are little or no evidences to prove the book of Mormon. How many times must I say that??? But there are also little or no archealogical evidences that "prove" you were ever born. I think most of us overestimate our understanding of archeaological research.
I do not claim to have no opinions, yes I am opinionated -I have strong opinions, yet i realize when I step into that area where there is no support and I begin to speculate. I also realize that there are theories both supporting and against my views. But the article in dispute is about theories, not facts. Achealogy is about theory. There is no "fact" in archeaology, unless you were personally there. No inferences, yet discussion of theory. This article also disproves the popular arguments against the BOM - such as horses, elephants, migration patterns, etc. which it does.
You say I do not understand church history, this is true - however, I've read a lot about it. I try to understand it, but since I did not live most of it, I study it and try to udnerstand their struggles and teachings and point of view. Someday I do hope to understand it, however, for now I view it from my own world view, as do you. As I've spent time in Church archives, the historian's office, in special collections and my own research, I feel I have a good foundation on the events and beliefs and statements of what took place.
Also, one point, if there is no research that can support the BOM, why do people do it? wouldn't it get frustrating? Yet there are a growing number of scholars both within and without the Church that do archeaology to support their theories on teh book of Mormon. I realize the BoM cannot be proven (again I state this) but I also understand the way the system works this article is about archealogical theories, which it addresses very nicely - from a scientific point of view (by the way, are you a scientist - very curious to know - as it could change the direction of our dialogue). Please do not misunderstand me. The Church has been consistently silent on the matter. It does not and has not once offered the end-all on the matter.
Now, if you want to talk about evidences of Joseph Smith as a translator of ancient documents, we can discuss the Book of Abraham or his translation of Genesis and discuss all the "coincidences" there with current Egyptian research. I do not wish to argue, but provide an accurate view for wikipedia. Your cultural understanding of Mormonism is needed by wikipedia, but do try to appear to be NPOV. Acknowledge what you don't know, and put in data where you do.
By the way, thanks for adding in the Austrailian DNA paper - very interesting, but less publicized. Your information about church courts is not accurate - even Thomas Murphy never sat in a church court, nor was excommunicated - look back at the records - he had a meeting with his stake president, but no church court. This is what i'm referring to when I discuss people reading primary sources rather than trusting hype. Nor does a link to "Cult" have any point in this article. As for your Quasi-statement, you may want to check out the illinios research i suggested. Non LDS research actually addresses it and, albeit critical would disagree with your conclusion. -Visorstuff 18:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Murphy was going to be held in front of a church court. He was scheduled to do so but at the last minute the church told him that he could have his belief and they would leave him alone. This is interesting, as the media ateention the church was trying to avoid would have given the church one hell of a black eye. Murphy was one step away from being exed. He was not exed because, as everything these days that motivates the LDS corporation, it would have been a PR nightmare that would have drawn a much greater ammount of criticism against the church centering on MDNA.

Murphy himself said that he was going to be exed and he was surprised he wasn't. --Vegasbright 12:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for outside comment

I appreciate the dedication and hard work Visorstuff has invested to improve Wikipedia since 2003, and I appreciate his careful and caring efforts here to address specifically your (Vegasbright's) edits to various articles. In many areas of Wikipedia, I am certain that you would not have had as considerate a repception from the "old guard" editors as V is sincerely trying to give you. If you will talk to User:Alai, User:John Hamer, and User:Wesley all non-LDS editors, I feel they will assist you in honing your approach. Some of your assertions have merit, and might belong in the encyclopedia, but we have to find the encyclopedic way to include them. Tom Haws 15:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I want to address with you two matters you brought up:

  • "If given a blank slate to write this article again it would be one sentence: "There is no evidence supporting an israelite migration to the americas suggested by the book of mormon". There. End of article." What you don't appreciate is that an encyclopedia's job is to present all human "knowledge", and that your simplified, one-sentence article simply does not do justice to the decades of effort by FARMS, the Tanners, and scores of others on both sides. Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon has had immense study efforts by apologists and skeptics. And whether it is history or fiction, those efforts are part of human "knowledge". Your deletionist approach is not allowed by Wikipedia policy. Please talk to User:John Hamer about this. Tom Haws
  • "The plain fact is that JS to Hinckley has taught that the amerindians are ALL descended from the israelites." As V suggests, there is room in the encyclopedia for this "knowledge" about the Mormons. An encyclopedia is not a place for suppression of embarrassing facts or for grandstanding of sweeping certainties on either side. We want to include significant facts about the Mormons. You simply have to stick around long enough to help us figure out how. Visorstuff has been amazingly valiant in trying to accommodate you, but you have to bear part of the responsibility yourself. User:Wesley has not been shy about his opinion of Mormonism as a religion. Perhaps you can get some ideas from him. Tom Haws

Finally, a word about Visorstuff's view of the Book of Mormon. Nothing he has said gives you any reason to think he is personally backpedalling on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. It is true that he insists on asking what the book itself says rather than relying on the culture/church for interpretation, and this is laudable. You see, Visorstuff is being perfectly consistent in keeping his issues clear. In reality, the cultural beliefs of the LDS Church, Community of Christ, or FLDS are only peripherally of interest to Book of Mormon Studies. In the Book of Mormon articles, the issue is the Book of Mormon. Issues of the beliefs of any group must be placed in their proper attributed frame (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Tom Haws 15:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

personally backpedaling? No. Contrary to my rather opinionated edits I want to state vihemently that I do not take personally anything said here nor do I take personally the lack of aobjectivity in any article on Wikipedia. To be honest, I fond everyones pro and a minority of anti comments trite and full of vitriolic zealotry. Vstuff, we disagree - Duh! But you and others need to realise that your opinion of the book of mormon is a very small, distorted opinion that noone outside of the zion curtain shares. vegasbright

I also recommend you seek suggestions from others - although I am an admin, I don't claim to be perfect, and others would be equally qualified to address your concerns - although I believe they will side with my reasoning. -Visorstuff 18:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions from Who - as in what camp? I continually hear this from you and Tom. Although I agree that there must be a broad range of voices, your attempt at steering me into complacency is getting tired. The repeated references to the POV doc is along the same lines, yet you repeatedly deny others right for an objecting opinion. I guess we will see if my metallurgy comments will stick - I doubt they will and I assume you will find a reason to have them removed.


Also, I reviewed your notes in edit summaries - sorry my explanations are longer, I tend to over-share, as things can be complex, but it is my style - I took no offense. The more I know about you the more I can tailor my comments and share shorter notes. And thanks for the compliment: "Bias is blaring in your tone - Are you nibleys ghost?" That will likely be the only time I'm ever compared to Nibley. He was a brilliant and humble man - and yet quiet and thoughtful. -Visorstuff 20:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiholiday for me

Hi Vegasbright - just wanted to let you know I'm taking a Wikiholiday from Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, as I've gotten too emotional on the page. I am curious as to who else you've discussed my edits with your statement: "Once again I precieve, as others who have spoken to me about this that your responses to my edits can be described in...." I only see that you've made a dozen or so contributions to Wikipedia. Are they those who are familiar with Wikipedia and understand the policies? I'd be interested in the feedback as I know I often come across as cocky, although I do not intend to, but I'm working on it. Any feedback you can pass along would be appreciated.

Honestly? They are individuals who share a common interest in the ideals of wiki's, open source software and other sharing of open information. This discussion took place in my own closed wiki on my site. They felt as if you are bullying - not my words. You would get eaten alive in an open source software development project. We were discussing the nature of open information and the suppressing of these ideals. They are mostly moderates and intellectually-minded wine and cheese types such as myself. No offense but yes, yo came acrost pushy and suppressive.
Sorry If I come across as bullying, pushy and "suppressive" I glady think contrarian points of view should be added as appropriate, just without using opinion words that show bias. -Visorstuff 23:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tom and I suggested reaching out to Non-LDS editors who work on the WP:LDS , who may be able to help both of us figure out how to better work together (you may even want to reach out to other editors that do not deal with the project to get a better viewpoint on how we could work well together). There are no "camps" here, as you suggest - and I'm sorry that you feel you must "get others involved in this then I will see if I can muster up some individuals to oppose your capitalization of this article." It is easier to tear down than to build, and I hope we can collaborate and build articles that are informative and accurate. We are not hear to divide and fight points - that is not the point of Wikipedia- it is not a game, but an encyclopeda. It is not a way to push ones POV, but to deliver research and understanding to mankind.

Well, we have to agree to disagree there. With my time here on wikipedia I have noticed an extreme capitslization by the faithful LDS authors. Specifically the pro POV of mormonism is, by my count swayed toward faith promoting half truths and assumptions concerning history and moderate bending of scientific methodology. Why do you feel sorry that others could add to the discussion - you got something to hide :) ? Isnt it something that you should like? As I read between the lines I see a clear bifurcation. I guess we will always disagree concerning this. You put em up and I'll knock em down.
I would hardly call all of us "faithful LDS authors." Some are, some are not. Very few of us come from similar backgrounds. If you think "half-truths" are being shared, please share the other half.
You grossly (no attack meant) infer many things that I do not say. You took my comment above to mean that I felt sorry that you'd invite others to the disucssion - on the contrary, invite whom you will, that is fine, we need more wikipedia editors. I feel sorry that you seem to think that current wikipedians are not adequate regardless of their background, and that you feel you need to create a revolution to overthrow my "capitalization of this article." We have a depth of resources here, and it would be good to utilize their strengths. And yes, more people will make for better, more well-rounded articles in the long run. No, I have nothing to hide. I do not hide behind apologetics, however, I also realize the role semantics plays within my religion. That is oen reason Mormons are unique - we are an English-born religion. Not many religions speak or even read in their native language anymore. Aramaic? Egyptian? Welch? Hebrew? All are nearly lost.
As I mentioned before, you do have the advantage - it is much easier to destroy than to build - and you can "knock em down" as you see fit, but I do not place my knowledge there to tear down. Rather, I place them there in solitude - what I feel to be true and accurate, and try to ensure they are as factual to what is/has been offically taught as possible. -Visorstuff 23:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent edits at Common Latter-day Saint perceptions, however you may want to clean up the sentence structure of the following edit: "This continuing revelation is cited when massive doctrinal changes such as the temple endowment initiatory that took place on January 16'th, 2005." The sentence leads readers to believe that "temple endowment initiatory" is the change, not that there were changes to the iniatory ordinances. Keep up the good work, and I hope to be able to collaborate well with you in the future. Let me know what I can do to help make your Wikipedia experience good.

By the way, we'd like to invite you to join the WP:LDS project. You have insight that has not been addressed previously that is valuable to rounding out the articles in an appropriate way. Feel free to add your name to the project participants section if you'd like to join. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 17:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that.
Glad to have you on board -V

Incidentally, what mission did you serve in? I see a reference on your home page to Ashland. I served in a city by the same name in Virginia, was curious if it is the same one.... -Visorstuff 19:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I served in Minnesota-wisconsin-iowa and Michigan. I could have gone to Canad, we covered thunder bay ontario. --Vegasbright 21:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like you had quite the experience there. Look forward to continued work together here. -Visorstuff 23:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LDS Project

Welcome to the LDS project. The easiest way to make good use of the LDS project is to add the project page to your watch list by clicking the "watch" tab above the page. Watching the project page will also automatically watch the discussion page. Tom Haws 17:14, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

I don't think BOM is a standard abbreviation here. I am expanding in this article to the standard. Remember to write in good encyclopedic style. Tom Haws 16:28, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of articles about Mormonism

I was perusing the above article and wondered if you had seen it. It gives a good sense of the scope of the WP:LDS project. Immense.

Also, I have really enjoyed these articles:

-Tom Haws 05:21, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-TBM editors

p.s. I note above you didn't get an answer to this question: "Suggestions from Who - as in what camp?" May I suggest the following non-Mormons:

  • User:Alai (not a Mormon, but a participant in the WP:LDS project),
  • User:John Hamer (a cultural Mormon of the RLDS-ish tradition from Missouri. A scholar),
  • User:Wesley (an Eastern Orthodox? Christian who minces no words about his thoughts on Mormonism. A Wikipedia administrator),
  • User:Sam Spade (a seasoned Wikipedian who recently showed up to ask about including more explanations of things such as the mystical Mormon underpants).

Get to know all four of those fellows. They may brighten your outlook around here after running up against us TBM's. Tom Haws 05:30, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

It would look like Anti-Mormonism might be an article where you could express yourself in a NPOV manner. It is currently rather unbalanced in favor of the LDS, and perhaps you could help to balance it. Cheers,

Sam Spade 12:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll gird up my loins and take a poke at it. --Vegasbright 13:43, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My two cents

I recommend you first learn about Wikipedia and how it is supposed to work. You will not find this by editing on contested articles. I recommend you edit things you have no emotional involvement in until you feel you have the hang of it. Try improving the atheism article once or twice to see protectionism (creation of property ?) at work using spurious reasoning. The discussion article on the page is useful to see what I'm talking about. I find it useful FOR ME to try to edit contested articles no more than once per day. Spread your useful additions around like seeds. Some will be deleted, others will grow. Most articles can be improved with no one getting upset. A few are scenes of all manner of wrong behavior. Do what works for you. By the way, Sam Spade is stubborn, smart, funny, opinionated, pisses people off, and in my opinion one of the best things I've run across on Wikipedia. Please remember, above all, HAVE FUN. (Also you might consider copying something from your blog to your user page.) (4.250.xxx.xxx) 4.250.201.141 23:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] adding the jar total to 4 cents

Well, if that works for you great. I see Wikipedia as something to concentrate on for interests that I see fit and if emotionally charged articles are what I concentrate on, then I will become a better researcher because I HAVE to back up what I say. The main reason I love wikipedia is you get trounced for posting BS, unless you are in subject matter noone else cares about. I am not a stranger to academic research but its still new teritory and constructive conflict breeds an ability to back up what you say properly. Editing articles about the "brazilian snail darter", although useful, will not produce the rapid ammount of responses. --Vegasbright 07:28, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

"Do what works for you." "Above all have FUN." Since jumping into the fray is apparently both for you, I'll have to lurk on the Mormon articles to watch the fireworks. Cheers (4.250.xxx.xxx) 4.250.177.178 15:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to seek the same type of "rapid amount of responses" as a blog which may be a more appropriate forum for the type of conflict you seem to want. Ciao.

[edit] Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.

A bit of a mormon vs mormon dispute on Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. regarding Smith Marriages versus smith's sealings to women. Since you have a differing POV, I think you can add a good fresh perspective. Can you comment and help?

I wrote the following on the page to sum up the arguments as I understand them:

I think he is looking at a different issue than the reputation of Smith. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not a place for primary research. I've been able to find evidence of Smith being 'sealed' or 'married' to at least two dozen (26) women during his lifetime. Some, as was suggested, was to unite families or ensure a sealing link between father (smith) and daughter (the sealed), rather than as spouses - and unfortunately the type was not recorded very specifically. Others were actual marriages - if Emma was present and a certificate was handed out, it is pretty reliable (hence Zina, Eliza and others were this way) as a formal marriage. The issue is where the lines fall and where they do not. The term "Sealing" was not as defined as it is now. The disputed ones you suggest could fall into a number of these categories. The other issue is that Compton's list - not his book - is found as reliable of sealings (his book has many mistakes). This is likely one reason why the church does not comment on the matter as it is so gray. Finally, what about the hundreds of people sealed to him after death. How many of them are considered wives and how many as sons/daughters? Questions such as these need to be explored and I feel that this discussion is too fast moving on deciding absolutes. Let's slow down and look for more evidence, not just on the internet such as the "factual" compton's work being referenced. Let's look around to find what we can and not jump to conclusions on either side. The issue is complex enough, and when you start adding in absolute statements it causes additional issues. This may be one item that User:Vegasbright may add some value to as he looks at it from a "naturalistic" POV. I'm not sure he's that familiar with all the research, but understands how Mormon terminology is splitting hairs and could offer a fresh perspective on Marriages versus sealings.

Would love your help, as I think it would be valuable and you seem like you'd be familiar with Compton's list and his book. For a history of the dispute, between Stormrider, Trödel and Nuh-nuh please read: Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#Plural_marriage If you can comment, it'd be much appreciated -Visorstuff 00:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well.. the dispute seems to have resulted in the hiding away of the list on Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, Jr., and I've placed some of your comments from the JS, jr. talk page there as well. I suspect the list will disappear there, too, unless you render it some of your tender mercies and attentions. - Nunh-huh 02:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, the new page will undoubtedly recieve good attention and a thourough discussion. I look forward to seeing your additional research there, Vegasbright. You may want to include some of Brodie's arguemnts and why she was later deemed unreliable with her larger figure by the likes of Compton, Quinn and the Tanners. I think you should take lead on this since you've been reading on this subject the most recently - undoubtedly you have the time. If you'd like a few additional resources, please let me know, if not, I'll trust you'll take sources and arguments from all available sides. I figure there are four schools of thought - 1- "adulterous/fornication cover-up, human weakness;" 2- "God-commanded, innocent and verneated," 3- "the issue is too complicated and there is little actually docuemnted or known;" and 4- "he did? well lets look at the hard facts and straight evidence - let's list it and be open about it." I know you fit more in 1 and I am more in 3, so let's try to include thoughts for 2 and 4 as well, but place them in context as (2) is more the believer and (4) is more the typical non-exposed to LDS theology thought. Let me know if you need help and i'll offer help and comments as is needed. I do think the list needs to be listed, but we should also include brodie's and quinn's as well. I personally woudl like to include my list of 26, but i know wikipedia is not a place for primary research (although the early tanners aren't that far off of mine, though they've lately been more silent because of the more recent evididence). Perhaps I can publish my findings and then quote them here. :^). Also may want to include the discussion about family sealing versus marriage sealing as it does relate to the issue. Good luck! -Visorstuff 03:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see there being 2 views with caveats within the two which is I think what you are saying. Myself being very familiar with LDS theology and somewhat familiar with history (theres always the index of a book - God I hate history references on the internet!!) I find the legitimization of adultery through supposed "revelation" the most plausible. As for references, Compton has done an excellent job of providing documentation from many sources. The hang up occurs when, as I stated in the JS talk page, the faithful do not accept references from disaffected members. As I stated before, I find this hypocritical, so be sure to be called out when this happens. I expect no less from you if I use bad sources or poor logic. --Vegasbright 07:12, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
If that's what you read from my statements, let me better explain. This is not a adherent/believer or faith based issue - it is a historical one. One can't think that everyone fits into two camps - those who love Joseph Smith and accept everything he did as true and those who think he was an evil man/adulterer. Even some Mormons have tried to do this and failed. Black and white does not fit everything Smith did. Let me better explain my groupings:
I think group four as explained above would include Christian fundamentals who practice polygamy, Muslims who practice polygamny anda great number of people who simply don't care, but want to read of the issues here on Wikipedia. It would include a great deal of people who do not see having multiple partners as wrong. It could even fit people who think smith was hypocritcal, but had good intention. This group would not see Smith having multple wives as evil. With about a Billion adherents to Islam in the world and the millions of polygamous relationships in the US, those who do not see polygamy as wrong, this is a large enough group not to be ignored. The article should address from their point of view. The third group would include people who may be members of the Church but struggle with certain things smith did. You probably fit into this category at one time. It would include historians who are slower to come to a concrete judgement as they understand how uncertain evidence can be. It would include people who plainly don't want to decide or even care about LDS theology.
As for the statement: "The hang up occurs when, as I stated in the JS talk page, the faithful do not accept references from disaffected members." I completely agree with including their statements, however, you must also look at their intent. For example, Ezra Booth claims were sensational and he completely lost credibility and his reputation because of his dishonesty. He is known to have fabricated most of his information - ALL Anti-Mormon writers who have seriously studied Mormonsim (Brodie, Tanners, etc) don't use him because he is deemed untrustworthy source. Does Ed Decker use him? Yes. What about Kraukauer, or KOTC? Yes. How embarrassing for them. I assume you are familiar with his writings and why he is discredited, so I assume you won't use him (I don't think he states much about polygamy, but adultery charges, yes). Same with the Johnson quote you cited earlier. He mentions Fanny's father/brother. Johnson could not have known Fanny's family, it would have been near-impossible based on the historical facts, however, people still quote from him, yet he is unreliable. At the time he made the statements, he was actively doing anything he could to discredit Smith. Even Phelps said he lied on certain things to make trouble for Joseph - therefore you have to take his statements with the time context and additional evidence. I will call out these discrepencies from dissaffected members - and will sources quoting members as well that exhonerate Smith (and have a number of times in the past). I want to make sure a well-rounded and accurate view is presented, not an apologetic view. I feel that an apologetic view often does more harm than good, as I feel that belief in Smith and the Book of Mormon and the church is a faith-based issue, not a reasoning/logic issue. I have criticized the Mormon writers just as much as I have you (if not more) on other occasions - especially on terminology, history and doctrinal statements. I'm seeking quality and evidence to be presented in context - whatever the context and outcome be.
Hope this advice is taken in the way it is meant. Don't be so absolute in your statements/conclusions. Don't be so black and white. Don't make up your mind as to the outcome of the work before it is written. Don't only use the evidence that supports your theses. Present evidence, let peers adjust for historicity and to comply with other primary documents, and write for the reader, not for a position. 1+1 does not always equal two, not matter how many times your fourth grade teacher promises you that it is a "fact." This was all wise counsel I received during my training in historical topics - and things now doubt you will learn later in life and your college career. I hope it will help you as well. -Visorstuff 14:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ex-Mormon Wikipedians

Glad to see another exmo on board.

There are the current exmo Wikipedians I know of:

  1. User:Sheldon Rampton
  2. Me
  3. You

Do you know of any others? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 14:56, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Vegasbright. I'm not sure I understand completely all your concerns at my talk page, but I think I get the general gist. I am sorry that things are turning out every bit as difficult here as I thought they might for you, but I am glad you are persisting. I will continue to do all I can to facilitate improvement and understanding in the WP:LDS project, and I will always appreciate your dedication to the project. If it's important I understand exactly what's bothering you so I can be a better ally, we may want to discuss this further. Tom Haws 15:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject LDS

Hello! I noticed you were on the list of members in the LDS WikiProject, and I was wondering if you were still interested in helping out there. You see, over the past few months, it appears that it has slowly drifted into inactivity. But you CAN help. Please consider doing both of the following:

  1. Take ONE thing form the To-Do list and do it. Once you're done with it, remove it from the list, and from the<>{{Template:LDSprojectbox}}<>, so we know its done. Keep the page on your watchlist. We have a backlog going for more than half a year. Please help to work on it, and remove it.
  2. Vote on the LDSCOTF, and work on it!
  3. Tell your friends (esp. LDS friends, & esp. Wikipedian friends) about this WikiProject, and enocourage them to join (and be active).

Remember: your involvement in this WikiProject is just that - involvement! Please help us out.

(Note: I'm sending this out to everyone who's name was on the membership list, so I will NOT be watching this page for a response. If you want to contact me, do it on MY talk page, please.)

Thanks for all that you do -Trevdna 15:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to Mormonism

I think that Mormons have way to many pages. It looked like you might agree. I added merge requests and suprize they were removed so my only real other recorce is to open this up to discussion among others. So here is a list some of the sights that could be merged to Mormonism. If you look up the Catholic (the largest oldest christian religon) you will find maybe four or five pages. (I am not Catholic)

Category:Latter Day Saint films Category:Latter Day Saint music Category:Latter Day Saint denominations Category:Latter Day Saint doctrines, beliefs, and practices Category:Latter Day Saint doctrines regarding deity Category:Latter Day Saint hierarchy crossreferences to Latter Day Saint leaders Category:Latter Day Saint ordinances, rituals, and symbolism Category:Mormonism and controversy Category:History of the Latter Day Saint movement Category:Notable people in Latter Day Saint history crossreferences to Significant places in Mormonism Category:Latter Day Saint leaders Category:Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Category:Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Category:Latter Day Saint texts Category:Book of Mormon Category:Latter Day Saint periodicals Category:Notable Latter Day Saints crossreferences to Notable people in Latter Day Saint history Category:Organizations related to Mormonism crossreferences to Latter Day Saint denominations and Latter Day Saint hierarchy Category:Significant places in Mormonism Category:Latter Day Saint temples

I believe some if not all aticles here to be Mormonism aticles.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/e/g/User_talk%7EVegasbright_d504.html"