User talk:Visorstuff/2005 Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Rename of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 2 Talk:Polygamy 3 Protection request 3.1 Talk:Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses 4 Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses 5 Gold plates "question" 6 Utah WikiProject 7 Links for Newcomers 8 Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. 9 Bishops 10 Priesthood Discussion 11 Priesthood Correlation Program 12 Joseph Smith, Jr. article 13 Whoops! Duplicated an Apostle. 14 Archaeology and the Book of Mormon 15 New quotes 16 Linquistics 17 Thanks for your email! 18 Sign up at the bank 19 In looking over your comments on the exmormon talk page - You are a pompous ass 20 Re: Disputed tag 21 Hi 22 Linguistics and the BoM 23 Treatment of Anti-Mormonism 24 Interested in leaving a comment for the Wikipedia Signpost? 25 God was once a man? 26 Opposition, Criticism, or Anti- 27 Polygamy and apologies 28 Jesus 29 Further explanation... 30 Thanks 31 Welcome 32 Hope you stay for a while. 33 Tom 34 Mormonism and Judaism 35 Help at Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. 36 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 37 User 68.46.222.74

[edit] Rename of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Can you please support the rename and requested move to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter=day Saints Wikipedia:Requested moves#Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_.26rarr.3B_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints Thanks --Trodel 06:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No problem re the name change - I think someone would have brought it up even if you hadn't - lets hope it goes well. I am trying to get a friend who is very knowledgable about Church history to help on the Wikiproject:Latter Day Saint Movement and to vote on the name - don't know other Wikipedians well enough to request a vote from others. Trodel 22:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Polygamy

You wrote: Researcher99, if you could put together a 200-words (or so) paragraph about how polyandrous "couples" meet, and cite this web page as one source - ITYM 'polygamous' or 'polygynous' here? R99's argument for citing that page is that it shows the existence of single women looking to join male/female marriages; polyandry means one woman married to multiple men. --Calair 00:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I do understand the difference, and I'd normally agree, however, I expanded the "requirements" for his finding of multiple sites, as I don't think there are any out there like this that help multiples meet for marriage - wheter polygamous, polygynous or polyandrous. There just isn't the information out there to justify the content. I'd find nothing wrong with adding in women finding multiple men, if it supports this point within the polygamy article. Frankly, I'd find it rather interesting, as long as the difference is clear to the reader. Thanks for the clarification. -Visorstuff 20:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection request

V, would you please protect Jehovah's Witnesses for me. I am too close to the article and might be accused of choosing which version to protect. I will explain on that talk page. A couple of parties just need a cooling off period. I will unprotect it when they are ready. Thanks. Tom H. 19:06, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Tom, hope you are watching my talk page - My first thought was that I wasn't sure the page needs protection quite yet. This issue needs to be ironed out and I think that it can be. However, after reviewing the arguments on teh talk page - I agree - You all need a break for the weekend. -Visorstuff 20:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. (It happens I am watching it.  :-D) Tom H. 20:25, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

It is still going on. Please protect so I can intervene. Tom H. 20:27, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Done. -Visorstuff 20:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thx.  :-D . Thomas  :-) Tom H. 20:30, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me guys, If you look at the talk page Polemotheos has stepped out of the arena. I feel kind of bad about it because I was so pushy. I should have helped him out instead of fighting but, the page can probably be unprotected now. george 17:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses

To give Tom some distance would mind giving some input to the Disfellowshipping discussion? Say, "Thank you Tom, for getting me into this!" :-) george 18:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses

I invite you to sign in as a participant to the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses project and add that page to your watchlist. Tom Haws 21:03, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gold plates "question"

I am very impressed by your treatment of the gold plates question at Joseph Smith, Jr.. It was an exemplary act that inspired me to take the baton further. Tom Haws 17:11, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Utah WikiProject

Thanks for joining the Utah WikiProject! Please feel free to leave any suggestions or comments on the talk page! Thanks [jon] [talk] 19:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links for Newcomers

Do you have a set of links or a welcome message premade for giving to newcomers - I am helping out a buddy and searched for newcomer links but got so many hits I just didn't have the bandwidth to sort through them. TIA Trödel|talk 19:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, how come no one told me about List of articles about Mormonism (or how did I miss this article for so long :) Trödel|talk 21:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of interesting, nearly hidden ways to find LDS related articles on the LDSM project page - these include categories, etc. Glad to have helped. -Visorstuff 23:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(blush) so it is even linked on a page I visit often - ouch Trödel|talk 00:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.

Very nice comment to SJB, V. Thank you. Tom Haws 19:31, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bishops

Thanks for the excellent comments - spying is encouraged - I should have asked for your comments also - but didn't want to overwelm those that already are making so much good progress. I'll rewrite tonight when I have more time (or maybe tomorrow depending on the Valentine's day activities). Trödel|talk 22:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Priesthood Discussion

FYI - I moved the parts of the Chart for the Priesthood discussion we were having on detailing the relationship between 70s, the 12, HP and elders to Talk:Priesthood (Mormonism)/Archive#Org_Structure since the talk page was over 40k (along with the prior discussions). But left the current Chart discussion on the talk page. Although it is in an archive I think it would be useful for us to talk some more re the Org Structure because it will help as I am planning on creating the additional charts listed on the talk page. Trödel|talk 17:47, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll make some edits and continue discussion there. -Visorstuff 18:12, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Priesthood Correlation Program

Thought you might want to take a look at this article as I am not as familiar with the relationship between the Auxillaries and the early church. Trödel|talk 20:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Took a quick look - lots of good material - will take a closer look this weekend. Trödel|talk 19:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The biggest thing I think could help is to be sure the article doesn't take the tone that "these things were necessary to correct error in the church". Rather there should be an un-biased way tosay the same thing. I don't think it is bad though in any case. Tom Haws 02:00, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Smith, Jr. article

1)An anon 66.87.237.64 made four entries to the Joseph Smith article in the last 24 hours. I've basically reverted them as they were all POV or dealing with things already decided on the talk page (Brody work). You could not call them vandalism. As (s)he is unregistered and there is no way to talk, is this appropriate? I'm sure this happens all the time. I read the info on how to handle system newbys, but what/how do you deal with anon's whose small edits are negative and are focused only on this article or LDS articles? I've already irritated her/him, as I got a message accusing me of vandalizing the work. As an admin, your advice please.

2)Saw your response regarding splitting the big Joseph Smith article up. Certainly more than one extra article would be acceptable, but the dividing lines could be hard to agree on. Hopefully a couple of others will chime in and then we can put a firmer plan up for voting, etc. Comments welcome. WBardwin 06:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just left a message on your talk page, which I am reposting here:

Thanks for changing - we need to be careful no to completely "revert" changes made by anon's unless they are vandalism. If we can use anything from the edits, we should. That said, if it completely goes against a decision made on the talk page, or is blatantly near vanalism, we should treat accordingly. I believe Tom (User:Hawstom) has stronger feelings about how to deal with them than I do.

As far as the specified edits, Brodie's work has been thouroughly discussed. Unless context is placed around the link, I believe it should not be included for the reasons discussed on the talk page. I would leave a note on the User's talk page, include a welcome, such as the one designed by Trodel ([1])to encourage a continuation of editing, AND to explain your recent reverts. We need more Non-LDS editors for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement to build additional credibility. Most newbie's don't read current research (Mormon, non-Mormon and Anti-Mormon alike) and when things are pointed out, makes more sense to them (even if they disagree).

Incidentally, this new user, User:Vegasbright is smart, as he has not been attacking doctrines of the Church, but rather cultural beliefs and folklore. To me, this is a much stronger argument, and should be explained in context. However, he is blatantly wrong about many points. For example, I'm not sure I know anyone who thinks that the Smithsonian uses the BOM as a way to direct research. And his edits at Martin Harris frankly were ridiculous if you've done any serious study of the Three Witnesses. But I digress. Keep up the good work - happy editing. -Visorstuff 18:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would just say as a practical measure it always helps if you can leave a word or two of a POV edit, even if it doesn't really improve the article. Wikipedia being free and open, we have to consider the ambassadorship angle always. But sometimes we are in a hurry and just have to revert. In that case, Trodel's welcome message is excellent, and I second everything Visorstuff said. Tom Haws 22:11, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. So this user is not an anon after all? How many IDs? No user pages/talk pages either as far as I can see. If I run across this one again, I'll try the "we need your focused help" kind of approach. I'd rather keep confrontation to a minimum. WBardwin 22:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Visor, have you reviewed the JS, JR. article recently. I was reading it today and came away pretty astounded. The article has very little to do with the man I know to be Joseph. It focuses on minutae that have nothing to do with his major accomplishments. In truth, I would say that a group of anti-Mormons could not have done a "better" job writing a article in which to discourage everyone from ever getting the idea that Joseph Smith and his church was nothing but a fraud.

I do not doubt the validity of most of the material that COgden seems determined to include, but I strongly disagree with their priority in Joseph's life. Were it more of a priority, we would have far more primary sources, rather than secondary or tertiary.

Among many other concerns, one stands above the rest. I know of no historian that has presented that Joseph primarily used a seer stone for his revelations, translations, etc. However, COgden has completely focused on seer stones while giving only token "tips of the hat" to the U&T and direct revelation. Please review the article and let me know if I am being overly sensitive and whether it would be appropriate to begin modifying the article. COgden may have a handle on reserach, but imho he has missed the boat on what priority some things played in Joseph's life. Storm Rider 01:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Jan Shipps wrote about this nearly a decade ago, as have the RLDS historians many, many times. Also, it is not new information - a bunch of the folks that attended the Joseph Smith Symposium at the Library of Congress earlier this year have written about the Seer Stone in much detail. The issue is one of semantics in my mind. What consists of the U&T? According to my reading of scripture, any stone that is used in "seeing" things is considered a U&T. Read Urim and Thummim - it alsco could be a process in my mind, not a device. It was important to Mother Smith, it was important to Joseph as he made comments like - "with it I can see anything" as compared to the effort it took with the Seer Stone. I disagree that it was the primary device, but Joseph Smith III preferred it over the U&T, mainly because of his belief of "historic tampering" by close associates of his father and even possibly his father. Regardless, it is not incorrect to call a seer stone a urim and thummim.

As to the rest of your concerns, i believe the article assumes that people have a basic understanding of Smith's religious acheivements. I agree that it is a 400-evel college course, rather than a 101 or a 200-level class. We should not delete, but add in basic and verifiable simplified information. We should, for example, state that many early church leaders realized taht that the seer stone was seperate from the breastplates and spectacled Urim and Thummim, but also considered it a urim and thummim. There needs to be more detail on this, rather than the "minutia" as you state.

I'm willing to help you with this and support your efforts to simplifiy (but not remove at this time), so keep me posted, as my big focus this week will be on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. I've just relized that particular article shows not proofs, but only discsses the controversies. As it is written it should be titled: Archeological problems with the Book of Mormon. I don't think people realize how much evidence there really is, as apologists focus solely on countering the problems. -Visorstuff 16:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Visor, I appreciate your consideration. I do not disagree with the validity of Joseph's use of "seer stones". The point I strive to make is the degree to which it is discussed in the article. I submit that it may even be graduate level. Subject are brought up without any context or description of their value. The impression is more for shock value than for telling the story and giving an appropriate degree of importance. In the scheme of things I would still say it was minutiae. I am not saying it does not belong, but should be put in perspective and context.

I will begin adding information on the role of magic during the time of Christ as well as language on seer stones and the Urim & Thummim and their importance in ancient Isreal. I am concerned that this will be viewed as more apologetic rather than informationa. However, without providing this context, the overemphasis on the seer stones is misleading to too many people.

In closing, the majority of the people reading this article are not already schooled in religion. You know as well as I do that the vast majority of Christians do not have a working knowledge of scripture or religious history. Even the learned man has problems, particularly when it comes to issues of faith. Storm Rider 01:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whoops! Duplicated an Apostle.

I find that I have created an article on Luke Johnson without finding the stub on Luke S. Johnson. My article is longer now. Would you direct me to instructions on how to merge the two or to simply delete the older stub? Or is this an admin function? Please advise. WBardwin 08:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd combine the information and then do a re-direct so someone else doesn't do the same. No special powers needed :) -Visorstuff 10:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Am I too inviting? That article is already one of our best, in my opinion. The lazy part of me says, "Shoo them away" (but I know that is wrong). Tom Haws 04:31, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think this should be one that we openly invite contrarian opinions on - I think that when someone as negative as Vegasbright has been toward the articles about the LDS Church realizes that there is no REAL support for Anti-Mormon claims (as I said, even the Tanners credibly shy away on this "belief topic" - and rightfully so), they will see how little there is to add from credible researched resources. There are a number of problems with Archaeology "proving" something - even the historicity of Jesus is highly debated by secularians and Christians, but not a topic for that page. I'd guess that Vegasbright is an "exmormon," but he has never come out and said - and he definitely receives his anti-Mormon information from the usual places - not documented well and older, out-of-date research - from the money maker anti's. We don't seem to come across serious anti-Mormons who actually read primary sources or even the Tanners work firsthand on various topics to see what the "latest" research is on various topics - and then tries to be credible. The challenge for most Anti's is just not there - it is too easy to read and pass along second-hand information that may not be credible but is damaging and scandalous. There are much easier avenues to fight and tear down the struggling than engage in a scholarly discussion. Much more juicy to identify those who are stuggling and don't read the primary sources and recent research or even the scriptures and plan "random acts of exposure" to critical material. The Archaeology article is well-documented from a Mormon perspective, but since non-Mormons typically don't address "Mormon" topics and engage in the "Book of Mormon Archaeology" debate, there is little or no evidence to the contrary as well. I doubt much will come from this as there is not much to add. Plus those of us who are familiar with the critical research realize all the variables and do not add much content to the contrary as it is. The whole topic is problematic, but interesting concerns from one so negative to Mormonism. Incidentally, if you get a chance to listen to Nibley's "how to write an anti-mormon book at [2] you should - very insightful. -Visorstuff 17:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I know we have done an honest job. And all you say is true. I guess it is our job as Wikipedians to open the door and say, "Here is the task and the rules; have at it," even if we know the result is likely either no contribution at all or bad faith or uninformed contribution. In any case Vegasbright is very welcome here, and perhaps he will produce something of value. I sure always appreciate your thoughts, and someday I'm going to clear up for you my POV on polygamy. Tom Haws 20:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Agree - and I hope he does add value to the article. Love to hear your thoughts on polygamy. Sometime I'd like to share with you mine about e/immigration. -Visorstuff 21:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I assume you saw that today I edited my user page including in the immigration area, right? I will love to hear your thoughts, because I have heard precious little reasoning on the subject ever. (I guess it's like the polygamy subject; often argued about, but little reasoned about). Tom Haws 22:19, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Very perceptive - I saw the change to your talk page and smiled. Being Arizonans, I believe we have a different view than most on the topic of immigration. It is a charged political topic for sure. It is interesting even further to think about how to use immigration/documented workers to solve the Social Security issue (add SS revenue by adding more to the workforce, while reducing foriegn worker benefits and unneccesary aid), but, again, it is a topic for another time and another setting. Immigation and documented/undocumented workers is an untapped resource that could solve a number of other political issues, but because it is controversial in itself, no one wants to touch it. I don't think the solutions are that controversial at all. Perhaps we can discuss through email sometime. -Visorstuff 22:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New quotes

Nice new quotes. "Is there anyone more to be feared or hated than an iconoclast, one who tears down, and bombs and destroys rather than builds and beautifies?" - Spencer W. Kimball" My word for that recently has been "debunker". It is a serious offense in the eyes of eternity to destroy faith of little ones. p.s. Is there an easy way to find who is a system administrator? Tom Haws 23:20, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

A list of Admins may be found at Wikipedia:List_of_administrators, and there are a number of useful links for Sysops, Bureaucrats and Admins at Wikipedia:List_of_administrators.

I really like the word iconoclast. Very interesting word and an equally interesting movement in our culture over the past few years - seems like a re-birth of the early 1970s again. Seems there is a growing movement to tear down rather than build. People today believe that everyone has to have a secret in their closet - that no one is pure or innocent. And they believe nothing is true, and that truth is relavtive - skepticism. I'm not sure if a skeptic or an iconoclast is worse, yet both cause the intellectual atrophy of this anti-authoritian society of moderates and extremes. I truly believe we are witnessing the end of libralism and conservativism in exchange for a more dangerous social relativism and moderate stance in older Americans (all is well), while the rising generation believe in anarchial social idealism (no government yet social equality) and disestablishmentarianism for all but the deserving (please don't govern, just provide social benefits and save the world). Yet both groups are skeptics and iconoclasts. Wonder how the political parties will morph over the next eight years with this movement. We are seeing the political spectrum change from a line to a cirlce where far right and far left are meeting. "It's not that I believe in abortion, its that I don't believe government should tell me what to do," this younger group says, yet in the same breath they cry for penalties for parents who don't wipe the noses of their children. They want responsibility without accountability.

We see this growing in the boldness of those who edit in Wikipedia - all the "pro-Mormon" versus "anti-Mormon" discussions. It wears me out to realize that people just want to fight a cause, but they want to choose the ones that they feel are the easiest. They see something they disagree with, but have no business disagreeing with it until they have truly studied the issue. And most haven't. They are doing what they accuse us of - they are giving in to blind obedience, in letting others tell them the arguements and the answers - rather than reading primary sources for themselves. Its an embarrassment.

Anyway, I am using big words and rambling - which means I'm tired. I need to go read something light to clear my mind. Now that is another subject. :^) Hope all is well... -Visorstuff 00:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 :-) Tom Haws 15:52, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linquistics

Thanks for the kind words. The one thing I don't think POV pushers understand in general is that charged words cast doubt on the neutrality of the thing being read - that is why I think Newspapers are in decline as to trustworthiness - they have POV words scattered throughout their articles - and as you read you trust them less and less. I hope I wasn't rude to User:Vegasbright as I think, like Tom Haws, that he represents a viewpoint that should be respected here. Anyway thanks again. Trödel|talk 13:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your email!

I appreciate your email. I've been unusually busy for a while, with a move, a trial, and various other things going on all at once, so I've been editing at a low level. That should eventually change. COGDEN 23:16, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sign up at the bank

Ask for an account at User_talk:Bank_of_Wikipedia. I'd like to transfer some funds for your service. Jgardner 20:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Be sure to mention I referred you. I get a small finder's fee. Jgardner 20:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In looking over your comments on the exmormon talk page - You are a pompous ass

Now I remember why I dont edit mormon related wiki pages any longer. Its because of childish and dogmatic replies from visorstuff. Tell me VS, as you lurked on the exmormon bulletin board, did you learn anything? Did you? I know you would deny involvement but I wonder if you got a kick out of believing that you are fighting the good fight, keeping those evil liars - such as myself - off of wikipedia. Enjoy your soapbox.

By the way, Alai, I am sorry I confused you with members of the church such as the illustrious and all knowing VS. Visor, as one who knows everything, I was wondering if you could answer me these questions: Why did the library of congress also have symposiums on other topics you would find contrarian? Your confirmation bias is glaring in that your beliefs concerning ol slick-willie joe (think about the term) are validated through an easily organised and funded symposium. If religious belief were this easy, AMWAY would be considered a faith. Get a grip.

But you will probably say "but thats not my point, I just wanted to create discussion". This of course is bunk. I have butted heads with you (usually initiated by yourself) long enough to know that it does not take much to convince you that joe was someone "who has more to boast of than any man". Leave it to VS to never stick to the point and include antagonistic language. Par for the course, VS. Don't worry - I expect this from you and is one of the several reasons I found editing mormon wiki's pointless and in the end like arguing with jehovahs witnesses. No one gets anywhere but you because your main goal is to argue via a pseudointellectual stance. So go back to proclaiming the gospel from wikipedia. I have better things to do than argue with someone who probably bases their personal validation on arguments he believes he percieves he has won.

Heres some news - No one wins here. THis is not a battlefield, its an intellectual community. You cheapen and soil wikipedia by your arrogant haughtiness. I am bigger than that and peer from the outside now, ignoring you. By the way, Tom was very kind and an all around nice guy. Thank you Tom for being so professional and courteous. If you come to Vegas, you've got a place to crash. You VS, on the other hand are prickly, hard headed and as pridefull as joe and brigham themselves. More to boast of than any man my gold plated ass! If anyone is a Corihor, it would be you. GOD I AM GLAD I LEFT THE SO CALLED CHURCH! I get to avoid individuals such as yourself, prideful, arrogant and in love with yourself and in your supposed postmordem deification. Yawn. --Vegasbright 14:21, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way - especially from my recommendations that I thought you'd enjoy some of the panels - based on your comments elsewhere - at the Smith Symposium. I simply just thought you'd be interested. There were some points discussed (from both viewpoints) that you've brought up elsewhere. As for the Alai comment, I thought it was harsh how you treated him undeservedly. I do not try to lurk on exmo boards, but rather I refer to them in my research. You'd be amazed how much cultural research is mimicked and how much Mormon folklore is promulgated on both those and the Mormon boards.

I completely don't understand your second paragraph above. Sharing those panel disucssions was one of my attempts at an olive leaf - obvisouly you didn't think so, and i'm sorry for that. It was an intellectual discussion about various Smith topics - believe me - not all were flattering.... Of course the LoC has symposium after symposium on various topics, but I thought you'd be interested in this one as compared to Amway. What was your point of this paragraph? Perhaps I'm missing something?

I do not claim to say that SMith was perfect. Nor that the Church is. You wrote: "No one gets anywhere but you because your main goal is to argue via a pseudointellectual stance." I'm sorry again, that you feel this way - I do think I qualify for more than "pseudointellectual," ;^) however, my credentials are irrelevant to this discussion.

Your wrote: "I have better things to do than argue with someone who probably bases their personal validation on arguments he believes he percieves he has won." Not so. There is no "winning" in faith-based topics. But rather, continued discussions, new ideas, new theories and faith gained. All of those things, just like the other sciences, change from time to time. I am fully aware that many of the "truths" we hold so tightly to in this life will be "shaken" when we move into the next life. I think it is funny how decided you and other Mormons are on various statement/doctrines. There is too much we don't know, and I freely admit it - but I am tired of folks who say "this is how it is - and there is no other way." I try to point out that folks - mormon and not - on wikipedia that they are reading too much into what was said - such as your "diefication" comment above and the whole "archealogy" discussion. There is just simply have too much we don't know. As for your "postmordem deification" you've obviously not read my edits on the matter/doctrine, as I do not believe it the same as many Mormons. I align much more in the school of thought as President Hinckley - we dont know much about the matter. I'm just glad to be a part of the work.

I completely agree that this is an intellectual community and not a battlefield, and have stated this in coversations with you a number of times. I am not an apologist - the endless battles is not my cup of tea. I am a historian, but align to faith-based topics (from all religions) from a faith-based standpoint - I have no reason to doubt the Smith story, the Fatima the Joan of Arc story, the Moses account or the Gnostic accounts. I do not judge their supernatural experiences for any more than what they claimed to see/experience. While I do not understand how they fit into my own world view, I treat them all as historical events - this is where you and I differ. Not in our view of Mormonism - our differences on Wikipedia begin with our approach to history. I've tried very hard to keep my personal views on Mormonism to the talk pages or not stated at all, not in the articles. I'm also sorry you perceive that I fail in this effort.

You've constantly read too much into what I've written - and that is unfortunate. I do wish you'd continue to help with the WP:LDS - and I've continually stated so. Don't "blame" me for your leaving wikipedia. You have been encouraged by many (including myself) - I just won't let anyone get away with simplification of complex issues in religous topics, that has been where we've argued -for example on Plural Marriage. It is unfortunate loss when you can add so much - particularly from a cultural viewpoint. I do hope at least you finish your Plural_Wives_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr. start. It's a wonderful start, but need much more to round out the article.

If you'd look at my treatment of LDS editors and Non-LDS editors - my treatement and "condescending" tone is to everyone - you are not singled out. Incidentally, did you mean Corihor (Ether) or Korihor (Alma)? -Visorstuff 21:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I must state publicly I do not consider ex-Mormons liars or decievers. I am fine with those who have differing opinions and realize we are all on different levels on our various spiritual paths. And although I may come across as a know-it-all, I try to err on the side of what is known, rather than speculation and cultural viewpoints. I feel bad that Vegasbright misunderstood my intentions in nearly every conversation we had. -Visorstuff 1 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Disputed tag

Other users already have discussions about disagreements on the talk pages. Also, I have things to add to the discussions, but I want to verify my sources first. Jobarts^-Talk 22:02, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Just dropping a line to say hi. I'm glad to see you are still around. I've been quite busy for some time with a new job, my first child and other things. Regards, B

[edit] Linguistics and the BoM

The Jaredites, unlike every other people, didn't have their language confounded at the tower of Babel, so they would have spoken Adamic, not Hebrew or Greek (they separated from the rest of humanity before the Hebrew or Greek languages came into existence). Thus, their use of names like Ephraim and Esrom is problematic.

Yes, just because a word is in the book of mormon, doesn't mean that Moroni's and then Joseph Smith's translation kept the Adamic words. This is pure speculation. The book of mormon or book of ether never claims that elephant, curelom or Esrom are adamic words, rather it purports to be a translation of 24 plates by moroni (and another translation by smith). Many have speculated that moroni kept those words, as curelom, etc., and that they were new words to smith, but it never states this. Please re-work that section of the article to reflect this is theory and speculation. -Visorstuff 13:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Certainly this holds for words like curelom, which could be either a Jaredite word left untranslated by Moroni or a Nephite word left untranslated by Joseph Smith. It also applies to one of the examples I had given, Ephraim, which is a place name and could as easily be a Nephite place name as a Jaredite one (I've accordingly removed the reference to Ephraim in the article). As for the three names that remain (Aaron, Levi, and Esrom), I don't see how they could reasonably be interpreted as translations of anything. They're the names of individual Jaredites; how do you "translate" a personal name from an unrelated language? The only example I can think of is the way Native American personal names are sometimes translated literally into English (Tatanka Iyotake is known as Sitting Bull, for example). Is this what you're getting at? Maybe you think, for instance, that the Jaredite king known to us as Levi was actually called something quite different, but that his Adamic name had the same meaning as the Hebrew name Levi so Moroni translated it. Is this the sort of hypothesis you have in mind? Please clarify. Pterodactyler 15:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying that names and words don't always translate right across between languages. For example, Lehi (which is a hebrew word, isn't "Lehi" in Hebrew. Lekee, Lei, Le He are all phonemic spellings of hebrew words that are translated into Lehi (or other words, incidentally). John is another. Juan, Sohn, sean, shon, shawn, Johann, Johannes, Joanna, Jonathan, Jaque, Justin, Yochanan, Ioannes, Jalal, Jaleel and more are all John in English. However, in their original language they are something else (incidentally there are hundreds of forms of the name John - this sample is the "J-list). Some hebrew names like Aaron are pronounced very closely, but still have multiple forms. Ephriam, in this way could be the same location as another ephriam, it could be a tranliteration of the closest english word, has the same meaning as a nephite or jaredite word, could be an adamic word, or a number of other theories. To pigeon hole it as solely a adamic or jaredite word, is taking quite a myopic view, especially when we don't know the translation process. We are dealing with at least four or five languages (if not six of seven) here that words could be - the Adamic, the morphed Jaredite language used by ether (language drift over a course of a thousand years, ), reformed egyptian, Nephite verbal, and english (then the biblical equivelent that smith may have chosen to use - hebrew, armaic, greek). Too many factors to say "this is how it was." Plus, you also say "this or that is problematic" - while I agree, you need to cite a source, not just use your arguments to prove one way or another. Wikipedia is not a place for primaray research. Hope this clarifies. -Visorstuff 17:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at my latest revision and see if you find it acceptable. I simply state that these names are used in the Jaredite record and that the Jaredites would not have been familiar with Greek or Hebrew -- undisputed facts, as far as I am aware. I no longer directly state that anything is problematic; drawing that conclusion (or not) is left as an exercise for the reader. Hopefully, that's neutral enough for you. If you still have objections, let's continue this discussion on the talk page for the article. Pterodactyler 18:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, now that we've finally come to an agreement, I had to go and rewrite the whole damn section (go figure!), trying to make it more complete and improve the organization and readability. When you get a chance, take a look and see if you find it acceptable. Particularly, make sure you agree with the second paragraph in the Proper Names section, where I lay out the background info on who all was involved in the writing/translation of the book and what languages they were familiar with. Pterodactyler 08:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment of Anti-Mormonism

Visor, I have been looking at other sites; particularly Catholicism and Roman Catholic Church. I impressed with the way they handle critisims and anti-Catholic comments. I think we should copy their example. Notice how they list, I think it was other articles on Catholicism, where all the articles were listed including those on A-C.

I have stated it before and I am convinced that the LDS are conditioned to accept persecution as if it appropriate. I believe in WIKI policy. It is appropirate, but there seems to be double standards, Those groups that are looked upon as cults, regardless of their true character, are deemed appropriate to bash without pretense. The objective is to explain what the Latter Day Saint movement is in a balanced manner. If there are anti-sites or articles they should be referred to, but not listed ad nauseum on many LDS related pages.

Am I off on a wild hair or am I just blind to reality? Storm Rider 17:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of anti-catholic articles, can you point me to a specific page? They are a religion with thousands of years of history, and Mormonism is quite young and doesn't have as rich a history yet (funny to be saying that with the heritage I feel). I sincerely believe that the catholic editors censor much more than Mormon editors do on Wikipedia. We for some reason feel we have to provide balance (so add in speculation and conjecture on items we really don't know much about), and they have been criticized for it as well.

Fair treatment? No. At the risk of sounding like I have a victim attitude (which I don't), the public perception of Mormonism is too great against it for us to even think about recieving fair treatment. I'm sure you've seen the studies done by supporters of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign - forty years ago, people said they'd never electe a catholic, jew or Mormon as a President. Now, the list is Mormons only that they won't elect. The percentages only changed 2-3 percent for Mormons, but decreased immensely for the others. There is more support for electing a foreign-born president than electing a Mormon as president. Because of whatever makes up this perception, we cannot expect the same treament as other religions. We need to get used to it.

I agree that there is a good number of bashing (and apologetics) within the WP:LDS. We should keep links, as I 've stated in other places, only and completely relevant to the article at hand. If we include a link to Jeff Lindsay, then we should allow for an anti site, but we shoudn't allow too much speculative links in either direction. Too many links ruins articles.

I don't think you are off on a wild hair, but we cannot expect equal treatement and we need to find a better way around it. Again, I do not have a victim attitude, but the reality is that there are strong feelings by some in both camps that refuse to listen to the other and both put in too much theory, rather than consensus-ized fact. The church, for example, is accused of over-simplifying, but they are stating what is known about topics, not what people think. If it cannot be verified from multiple sources, it is seen as unreliable and left out. It provides more truth and fact now than it did 100 years ago, but yet it is accused of being unreliable and inconsistent because it sticks to the core and proven doctrines and historical facts. It's a catch-22.

I'm open to any suggestions you may have to get others to give equal treatment. How can you enforce the same no-nonsense precedence policies adopted by Catholic or Universalist editors? Unless we make every edit referenceable, I see no other way. Sugguestions? Did I miss your point? -Visorstuff 18:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

At least we don't have it as bad as the Scientologists. I guess that's something. ;.) But I think a lot of Mormons invite excess criticism simply because they dismiss the criticism without comprehending it first. I know lots of people who are so insecure about losing their testimiony that they cover their ears and sing "la-dee-da-dee-daa" whenever somebody makes what they detect to be an anti-Mormon argument. If we all had that approach in the Wikipedia, there'd be endless edit wars, and eventually the anti-Mormon camp would win, because they outnumber us. I think all of us here are doing a good job of digesting the inflammatory material, keeping the verifiable facts and citations contained therein, and reframing it in a way that--even if it's not always favorable to Mormonism--it's at least stated fairly and accurately. COGDEN 21:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with your sentiments, COGDEN. You've hit the problem head on. How can we change this perception and make it better for all involved? There has to be a way to treat these articles better than a "pro" and "con" section on every page. This is one reason I'm stuggling so much with a couple of my page re-writes. How do you give equal treatement without sounding overtly apologetic or anti? What is the neutral way? How can we approach this better? Let's find a way. -Visorstuff 23:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you got my drift. I suppose I suffer from a bit of emotional fatigue. I just edited some the Baptism for the Dead article. Rather than an article that simply explains what the LDS chruch a a few others believe, it is an article that attempts to state what it is and then why it is wrong. My opinion is that there is no place for why it is wrong in the article; those beliefs belong in articles on the respective groups making the claims. Somehow deleting "anti" (not in anti-Mormon, but as in the simpler "against" without the emotion) statements gets confused with balance. The article is about a belief. It is not a proselyting piece, but it is instructional. What others believe is wholly beside the point and is appropriate for pages that describe their beliefs.

I do like simply having one link to all articles about Mormonism, which also includes anti-articles rather than list all the anti-links on every page. I think our Catholic brother and sisters have done an admirable job; my hat's off to them. Enough said. Storm Rider ~

Yup - we need to see if we can get Cookiecaper to update List of articles about Mormonism using one of his scsripts. It's all about compromise for us. -Visorstuff 20:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me for intruding on the conversation. I have to agree that "Mormons" of all stripes and all activity levels are conditioned to the inevitability of attack -- I think it goes with the "opposition in all things" viewpoint and a long group memory. However, just because the world at large feels it can throw ice balls at us without any consequences, I don't think we have to expect it here at Wiki. It will happen here, yes, but Wiki NPOV ideas can also work in our favor. In general, I think we have to work harder on our pages then other sects to achieve a neutral voice -- and I admire you valiant warriors for weeding out the most inflamatory material. Tom Haws in particular should be nominated for Mormon "saint"hood (I miss him). As to anti-Mormon sections and articles -- in an ideal wiki world I'd like to get rid of the term altogether, it is so blatantly POV -- "Mormon criticism"/"Mormon critics" is inherently more neutral. If the LDS group established such a neutral term as the norm, and did our best to enforce its use, we might find it easier to calm the other rhetoric as well. Forgive the ramble -- WBardwin 19:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Question for you before I reply. Is the term Anti-Semitism POV? -Visorstuff 20:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

A hard one. You have to remember I was spouting off a little. But ---- Semitism i.e. 1)Semitic character or qualities and 2)policy or predisposition in favor of Jews, ----so anti-Semitism can either mean "against semitic characteristics" or "against favoritism towards Semites." I would say yes, inherently the use of anti makes a target of the word which follows, and may assign the word a negative value. In words which describe a condition or action (anti-slavery, anti-discrimination, anti-censorship), "anti" immediate forces a judgment, and often a moral judgment, on the next word. But when the target is a people, like Mormons or Jews, you are actually focusing on and personalizing an enemy (see Dehumanization. "Anti-Mormon", whether labeled by Mormons or self named, strongly implies an emnity against the Mormon people, when actually most are opposed to or critical of some aspects of Mormon doctrine or culture. But, every time the term is used, an accusatory finger is pointed at each individual Mormon, and that probably generates our defensive emotional response. Of course, the exceptions exist -- anti-matter in physics would be inherently neutral.

I think it would be a worthwhile discussion for the LDS group -- but emotionally charged and hard to pin down. I'll be interested in your response and ideas. WBardwin 02:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is more complicated than more Mormons believe. Unfortunately, much of what Mormons classify as anti-Mormon is not considered anti-Mormon by the authors. When I first read Dialogue many years ago, I was amazed at how people wrote an analysis of Mormon history which contradicted the official LDS version of history, yet maintained a fondness for Mormonism, often maintaining a belief in Mormonism. Many of these people have been excommunicated since then. Boyd K. Packer said "there is no such thing as an accurate, objective history of the church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work"[3]. Packer suggests that accuracy is not a priority.

This opposition to historical accuracy causes Mormons to be consider anything an attempt at historical reconstruction to be an attack on Mormonism. That is the problem with Mormon's perception of anti-Mormonism.

For Roman Catholics, consider Spanish Inquisition, Galileo, Homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood, Roman Catholic Church#Criticisms. Different viewpoints are welcomed in the article.

Since Mormonism is quite recent, it is possible to see many contemporaneous documents. This makes changing account of the First Vision easy to see. The founding years Christianity don't have similar documents, though there is still discussion of Virgin Birth (Christian doctrine).

There are attacks against Mormonism, just as Mormons attack other religions beliefs. Mormons shouldn't worry too much about this.

I disagree with Storm Rider. Mormons are conditioned to consider discussion as attack. That's where much of the problem of anti-Mormonism comes from. Nereocystis 19:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Nereoystis, you and Storm Rider are talking about two seperate things, and a third was re-introduced in your post. The pages within the WP:LDS still get a lot of "Mormons hate black people" or "Mormons believe they will rule over other planets" or "Mormons believe that God and Mary had Sex" and other POV statements, as well as general vandalism. Each of the statements above, at the first glance may appear accurate to some, however, are not doctrines nor taught by the Church or are otherwise POV.

What you are talking about, I agree. Most LDS do not engage in discussion. In particular COGDEN and myself, and other LDS who have been around the Wikipedia for a couple of years do (or try to) engage in discussion - and once consensus is reached we don't go back on it. We do welcome discussion (although I'm not the best at it either). However, we also seek for accuracy and the above statements are not accurate. Nor are blanking pages, or changing Mormon to Moron - these do not happen on Catholic pages nearly as often as what we deal with. I do not deny that the Church has a controversial past. It does. That is not the issue. The issues are 1-accuracy or non-accuracy and 2-attacks or discussion. I also agree that we can do a better job at welcoming discussion, but need to find a better way to do it. But I also agree that we should expect more from wikipedians than "I also know a few things about Mormonism, and the Bible they had been using throughout the 19th and 20th centuries was the "JST" version, which was not identical to the KJV" and "Mormons believe that their Magic underwear will protect them from danger." We remove this stuff constantly. To me its either ignorance or anti-mormon. If they are ignorant, they should know that they are not qualified to add in those type of details. If they honestly believe the above after having studied the church and feel that they are qualified to add such asinine edits to a wikipedia article does so because they are pushing an agenda. Unfortunately, the agend is a public attack. Public attacks against the church is considered Anti-Mormon. Discussions or disagreements are not considered anti-mormon.

The potentially most controversial articles - Mountain Meadows Massacre, Blood Atonement and Plural Marriage do not have "Anti-Mormon issues" as the editors have engaged in discussion and been open to change and done so from a very scholarly view IMHO. Most of the "anti" stuff comes on the Main church pages - Joseph Smith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, etc. Even the Mormonism and Christianity article is a model of discussion. But that is very differnet than respect and anti-propaganda.

The third issue that arose in your post was in the Packer quote. As a historian, I interpret that much differenly that you did. I see him saying that you cannot study Mormon history from a naturalistic point of view and leave out the possibility of spiritualism or the supernatural. What if things actually happened like smith said? What if God, Elijah, Moroni, and Jesus and others actually appeared to him? As he wrote - you cannot give any sort of history of the church without considering "the spiritual powers that attend this work." Accuracy is a completely different thing than discounting the supernatural. This is one reason why Dialogue will never get mainstream acceptance among Mormons. It leaves out the spiritual, the spiritual implications and only treats the events and possible reasons why the events may have happened, but leaves out the possibility of God and supernatural (in saying this, I am aware that some dialogue authors do, but as a whole it is lacking). When you leave faith out of faith-based topics you lose the reasons why people act.

As a student of religions, I always look to why people act like they do. I am convinced that people act like they do because of teh possibility of the supernatural. Look at The Heaven's Gate (cult), or the Waco Branch Davidians, Ruby Ridge. Each of those articles do a huge injustice to the people involved and make them look like they were following an idiot. While that may or may not be true, they believed what they were doing was right because of a spiritual experience. You cannot remove that factor from Mormonism and solely teach it as a corporation-entity-historical movement. It doesn't work. Even Atheism has a spiritual and apocolyptic tinge to it - once you die, its all over. That spritual aspect cannot be removed from the belief system, like so many dialogue-historians try to do. -Visorstuff 22:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Growing up Mormon, I did hear that God had sex with Mary. It was probably discussed just a handful of times, and was probably off of the lesson plan, but it was mentioned. I also don't see that this is particularly anti-Mormon. Definitely not by the standards of Greek gods. It's hard to read Brigham Young's writing without reaching the conclusion that Young believed God and Mary had sex. Whether or not Young meant that, many Mormons have heard that story. It surprises me to see that this claim is considered sensationalized exaggeration.

Sure, Mormon articles are trashed regularly, but so is Invasive species, in ways which make no sense. More popular sites tend to get trashed more regularly. Roman Catholic Church does have a number of reverts as well. Mormons, like Jews, are very aware of persecution, and sometimes don't notice when it happens to others as regularly as to them.

As an ex-Mormon, reading Dialogue did allow me to have a more positive view of Mormonism. It is important to tell the stories of Mormonism, whether or not the stories have a basis in fact. However, the history is important as well. Packer does discourage information, beyond the quotes mentioned here. The articles here are OK, but often exclude controversial information. They do need work. Nereocystis 23:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

God having sex with Mary is not a sensationalized exaggeration, but a mis-belief. A Common Latter-day Saint perceptions. They, again, may appear accurate to some, however, are not doctrines nor taught by the Church or are otherwise POV. For someone to dig that up and place it as a main tenant of our church is either extremely ignorant, trying to be funny, or has an axe to grind. It is not a main tenant. The concept is not anti, but the priority in which they give it among doctrines. Did you know that some leaders of the African Methodist Episcopal Church taught that race was a curse from God? They believed their baptist counterparts? However, that is not a main belief on their article page, and if someone put it there, it would be considered racist or anti-black or anti-AME. Their history is just older than the LDS movements, so why don't people put that up there? Young's statement on the conception of Jesus is just as obscure and buried in history. There is a difference.

I do love your statement of Mormons being unaware of persecution to others. I also feel that many Mormons and many ex-Mormons (excluding yourself of course - User:Vegasbright is an example) have a victim attitude. This attitude is just a prevelent in some areas as similar attitudes in Jews, Blacks and Native Americans, Gays and other groups.

That said, I do believe we get more of it than many other religious pages. I watch most of the catholic and orthodox pages, and we do get ignorant edits much more than most. It's one thing to revert a blanked page. But for some one to add in the statements above, when they've "studied" mormonism in depth, it silly. A good well-documented argument has never recieved an "anti" label from me.

I am sincerely glad that Dialogue has helped you heal in your spiritual journey. As I read packer, he says two seperate things - the one I outlined above - don't remove supernatural from church history and the second - don't throw things out that will destroy faith. He is equally pointing to treatments of the founding fathers by those who had to show how bad they were (extramarital affairs, drug use, etc). What purpose does taht serve in an organization that seeks to lift and build, not destroy. If you lose faith in Jefferson as a person, you then lose faith in the documents he authored, as he was a hypocrite, and then lose faith in the results of that document - America.

Same with the church - don't go out of your way as a historian to feel like every little titalating fact is relevant. Don't destroy faith, but build it - not at teh expense of the truth, but focus on the positive rather than the negatives. I pray my great-great grandchildren years from now don't change their name because they thought i was a hypocrite or lost faith in my name.

I agree that more can be added to articles - but we need to make sure they are doctrinal when they make doctrinal points, and not just one man's view. Asking joseph smith while both of you are laying under an apple tree looking up in the sky if he thinks there are men on the moon, mars or saturn, is different than Smith preaching a sermon on the matter in a church setting. Yes he said it, we can put it there, but what relevance does it have, and did it affect church doctrine and culture? If so, we should find a way to include the info. If not, leave the titalating fact out. -Visorstuff 00:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a few points while I mull over your discussion.

• the perspective on history in the Church hierarchy has undeniably changed dramatically since about 1978-80 -- with (1) the church's experience with document fallibility with Mark Hoffman, (2) the increasing dominance of people with a faith based view of history (i.e. ET Benson and BK Packer), and (3) an increasing, almost invasive, critical scrutiny by the media towards all aspects of Western life. More "liberal" Mormon scholars, including Hugh Nibley and Neil Maxwell, addressed this issue in public venues. Lower profile historians prefer to keep their mouths shut. But, in short, the Church organization reacts very badly to being embarassed. Our youth as a organization probably bears some responsibility here.
• there is a real division between Mormon culture and Mormon theology/doctrine which is not apparent to most Mormons, most benevolent non-Mormons or to our critics. We don't dare laugh at ourselves - or at the queer little things our short history has produced. Visible, and quirky, Mormon culture almost always gets the public attention -- and that's often what ends up here on "Mormon" pages.
• as we culturally mature, I would hope our perspective would shift to the vision of how wonderful it is that the Lord can work through such amusing, stubborn, fallible people. It is faith promoting to know that people just as wacky as I am can accomplish some real spiritual good while on this earth. That is probably the real miracle. And it would do wonders for Mormons and others if human flaws and problems (and the fact that each person is a product of their culture and time) did not outweigh the good done by people as public leaders, Church leaders and Church members. All people have opinions, biases and prejudices -- and every one makes errors (except, evidently, George Bush ----ohhhh, my politics are showing). That's why the atonement was necessary. Anguish and defensiveness about our flaws can lead to overdoses of chocolate and a prozac prescription.

You say, "how ....nice, but what about Wiki?" Even though it is hard to hear, constructive honest criticism from members, former members, non-members will improve our product, and should improve each individual's perspective and comprehension of the issues we discuss. But, as I said above, we don't have to tolerate the "anti-'s" -- people with an agenda to destroy, damage, or discredit Mormon people and/or LDS doctrine and theology. We may face them in real life, but NPOV gives us a defense. I would hope we can learn to use it to produce a balanced and ever more mature view of ourselves.

My, what a tall soapbox................. WBardwin 06:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC) (It was me --took so long pondering that I timed out! 205.188.116.71)

Opposition to Mormonism states that Mary having sex with God is a sensationalized exaggeration. This isn't really correct. It is closer to call it a teaching which is no longer followed, or no longer emphasized. Whether this is precisely what Brigham Young meant can be argued, but with some Mormons believing it, it really cannot be called a sensationalized exagerration. Similarly Kolob and the wife of God are beliefs which are common in Mormonism, and are justified by early Mormon teachings. These doctrines cannot be dismissed as quickly as they are currently dismissed.

As an ex-Mormon atheist, I find these beliefs fascinating, and do not consider them as evil.

I am bothered by the lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, for example, but no more so than the beliefs of other Christians, astrologers, or homeopathists. Nereocystis 20:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Mormons, leaders and followers, are products of their time (see rant above). Beginning with Joseph Smith, and the men he appointed to leadership positions, there have been any number of personal ideas, speculations, opinions and outbursts that have come into Mormon records. The early Mormon habit of keeping detailed journals, i.e. Wilford Woodruff, give us a record of some of these incidents. (Which, as Nereo pointed out, is not the case with early Christianity.)

For example, Brigham Young was president for so long, and spoke so often, that the Journal of Discourses is really fun reading. I think he may have had something in common with 19th Century orators who made a public performance of standing before a crowd and speaking extemporaneously for long periods. Probably because of this, the Church, in recent years, has downplayed the JofD and other "non-Church sanctioned" material. Things like the Adam-God theory, Mars as the origin of life, Mary's sex life, Mother-in-Heaven, Lehi's landing site, blood atonement, etc., have just a touch of doctrinal basis, but then have been speculated on repeatedly over the years. Like a game of gossip, they change and move among the faithful in very interesting ways. In a Christmas visit to a small Texas LDS branch last year, I heard things familiar from my church experience as a child in another rural U.S. area, but these had really new twists. Mormon's are human enough to speculate on things they don't understand. Its part of the LDS "culture"-- like jello --, but is often perceived by insiders and outsiders as part of Mormon doctrine.

So, I think Opposition to Mormonism (I haven't looked at that one yet, by the way.), should address the small kernal of doctrine in each of the "popular" points. "Some Mormons speculate that Mary had sex with God because 1) we believe that God and the resurrected Jesus have physical bodies and 2) we believe that Jesus is literally the begotten Son of the Father." Now that artificial insemination and test-tube pregnancies are known and understood, we might see a new school of speculation on this one or maybe not. But, of course, sex sells and people's purient interest takes over and this type of thing is what they remember about Mormons. I think honesty is the best policy here, and I don't think "evil" comes into any of these stories. If we point out the kernal of truth, then the speculations can be presented as simply fallable human opinion. Mormons are really no stranger than people of any other religious stripe, but Mormon culture can be, and we have our legends and fallacies that people take as truths. We are really filling up Visor's talk page with this stuff. Comments? WBardwin 00:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)(me again, 152.163.100.68)

Briefly read the Opposition to Mormonism article. Goes off in many different directions, doesn't it? Maybe one of the results of this discussion would be a better organizational scheme there as well. I will think about its content and structure. Peace. WBardwin 00:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

While we are considering terms and perspectives, can we think about Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Does "Controversies" (which can imply Disputes/Quarrels/Strife as well as the expression of an opposing view) encourage the kind of face to face challenge we are talking about? While all of these positions have been theologically questioned, criticised, ridiculed and attacked, only a few of them are controversial in the modern media point of view -- i.e. feminism and homosexuality. Should the name of the article be changed to a more neutral "Doctrinal Issues regarding ......"? We discuss basic theology in Mormonism -- would a section there on "Other theological points" better cover much of this material? Then change the article to "Current Issues regarding ........"? These ideas may be nothing new (see Merging Mormon "Controversies" articles to parent articlesabove). Reducing "challenge" words might eventually tone down the rhetoric. Just brainstorming..............WBardwin 18:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interested in leaving a comment for the Wikipedia Signpost?

I'm looking for people interested in commenting about Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency and the ensuing VfD. If you want to be quoted, see User:Ral315/Signpost. (Only post in your own section, and please do not make direct comments to others' quotes. ral315 06:36, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] God was once a man?

Visor, I am curious if you believe that God the Father was once a man? Though JSF taught that Joseph taught it in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, it seems to be a statement that current prophets would not state so concretely. There seems to be a willingness to teach with turth of eternal progression, but that God the Father may not have once been a man. I know that this is a rather direct, and possibly personal question, but I value your thoughts. Please feel free to delete this comment and email me. Storm Rider 01:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I wondered if anyone would ever ask me this. I believe that God the Father is an exalted man. I feel pretty safe in stating this. We are created in His image. I think it is also pretty safe to say, "God in an exalted being" or "God is an exalted man" from an "official" standpoint as correlated church manuals still carry these statements. We have to know this to understand what kind of being God is so we can have faith in him.

Now, this is different than what exactly it means to become like Him, or if he lived on another planet, or on this one, or anything else. That has not been emphasized, nor do I see much in the way of recent church manuals to support detailed answers to this second question, although I personally believe something to this effect.

I do not pretend to understand what either of these mean, but I do have my personal theories about this, based on the words of Joseph Smith, and the words, speculations and theories of other Latter-day prophets, Church leaders and Mormon scholars. I think i'm pretty safe in the above and below

The gospel principles manual states (Gospel Principles, Unit Ten: Life After Death, 47: Exaltation, 301 [4]):

Our Heavenly Father is perfect. However, he is not jealous of his wisdom and perfection. He glories in the fact that it is possible for his children to become like him. He has said, “This is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).

2. They will become gods.

3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

4. They will receive a fulness of joy.

5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36).

What all that means, we are left to speculate, but we have some ideas [5]. We are getting into some pretty deep doctrine that we don't know much about. What does it mean to become a god? We know we can't comprehend it - the blessings of exaltation are great - they are profound, they are wonderful. We have some ideas - some glimpses, but they are not spelled out in great detail. Christ qualified and became a god prior to mortality - so there are different ways to become a god than life experience and mortality on this earth. He did not need baptism, but did it as an example. The rest of us to become a god, baptism is required.

Now having said all of that, I personally think that much of the speculation within the church and mormon culture is correct, and some is not. And scriptural evidence is there, but not spelled out in great detail, but what is there is to help us to knwo what kind of being God is and how we can worship him and become like him.

I believe there is a difference between true doctrines, teachings or doctrines of the church and speculation. We have things revealed to us by the spirit in order to know God personally. But those things can only be had by personal revelation, and cannot be taught by the church. To understand you must experience. You've likely had many of these happen to you, but may or may not have noticed. You know deep down what God is like as your father - it is part of you, but the church can only teach so much. This is one of the great purposes of revelation and of temples. As you progress your understanding becomes stronger and more correct. But "from a certain point of view" (quoting obi-wan kenobi) many things are true that may seem to contradict. In our finite minds, we are weak and must accept many things on faith.

I'm not sure if this answered your question, as you asked one question and I tried to answer three - my beliefs on the nature of God, the church's teachings and then moved into what our exaltation consists of. I wish i had all the answers, and know i don't comprehend them or the quesitons as well as i should. But that's my answer - let me know if this is helpful or if you would like clarification. -Visorstuff 13:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, the difficulty of stating that the Father is an exalted man is that there had to have been a "first" God. Although prophets have taught the concept, man now is, God once was; my personal belief is that it does not matter. I am content to think of God the Father as the first God and He will always be our God. However, if someone speaks of the concept of exalted man, I believe it. The eternal truths taught by Joseph emphasize the importantance of eternal progression and our Father's desire for us, His children, to be like Him. Yes, I agree these are mysteries that are not comprehensible in mortality. Further, I am not sure that it is necessary to understand. For me, the principle of the matter is of primary importance. We walk by faith and rejoice in the comfort of the Holy Spirit when we are yet blind. Thanks for sharing. Storm Rider 01:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition, Criticism, or Anti-

With the exception of Islam, most major religions have "Anti-". For example, Anti-Judaism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Protestantism, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Mormonism. The problem with the title "Opposition to Mormonism" is that it is tooo POV. Opposition to illegal drugs, opposition to racisim, ok. How POV can you get about the pros and cons of racism? LoL. The only diehard opponents to Mormonism are other Christians. The old title assumes that all people are opposed to the religion, or that few people question reasons for its opposition, which is just not true. --JuanMuslim 04:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a large "Anti-Mormon" contingency - and Anti-Mormonism, had you read the discussion page before moving it, is going to be rolled out when a re-write is done - there are a number of us collaborating on the page. There is a great deal of Anti-Mormon activism against the chruch by those who are not Christians - by Jews, by Muslims and Buddhists (very few Hindu Anti-Mormons that I'm aware of) in addition to other Christians. Had you read the history of the move to Opposition to Mormonism, you would have seen that page moves had been suspended (a moratorium on where the page should end up) because it was moved from Anti-Mormon to opposition to Mormonism without discussion. That page move, too, was done without consensus. I agree that "opposition" is not the right title, but please read the pages and why they are where they are before moving them. Thanks for the effort, JuanMuslim - just really bad timing on your part without reading the history of the page. It will all work out, just be careful. -Visorstuff 16:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I figured it wouldn't be such a big deal because I knew the article would one day be given a more NPOV title. The name of the title "Opposition to..." was driving me insane.--JuanMuslim 03:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polygamy and apologies

[You said that I was rough on other editors. If so, I apologize. I don't think that I'm rougher than many people in the Mormon group, but I'll try to scale back.

I agree with you on dropping discussion of past offenses. Hawstom did suggest that. Unfortunately, Researcher99, a month after Hawstom's suggestion, decided against that approach. Now that the mediation has failed, and the arbitration is moving forward, we should have resolution. It has been frustrating trying to get Researcher99 to engage in a discussion of the text of the article over the past few months.

I may have let some of my frustration slip over into other article. I apologize again. I hope that I can be more reasonable in the future. Nereocystis 00:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No worries on my part - I believe you are a good editor. No need to apologize to me.

I tend to be quite rough on editors as well - and have been complained about to others because of my strong statements and defenses of my opinion and research. However, once a consensus is reached, I tend to stick with the decision - whether I like it or not. I do not consider myself an apologist, but a seeker of truth. I consider myself a historian and sometimes come across as part of a snobby religious intelligentsia. I'm saying I'm not perfect, and I've probably not set a great example to other LDS-page editors as I should have - I fear many follow my blunt example, which is unfortunate.

That said, I completely agree that in any sort of relationship, whether marriage or otherwise, that "dropping past offenses" and living in the present is key. It is a good philosophy and a sound doctrine.

As for Researcher99, unfortunately, he has an air of his minor topics being important to include and being right from a perception standpoint. You have an air of your view being historically factual and little facts being unimportant. I'm not condemning or supporting either one, but it is interesting to watch as your philosophies are dimetrically opposed. Although he tends to be more liberal in his views, and you more conservative in historical views, I'd say you'd be more likely to be liberal in your political views and he more conservative in his. You both have an interesting dichotomy. It is unfortunate that you both cannot get along, as you have so much to learn from each other.

I hope you do not take offense to my statements. I truly value your contributions and work, although I would suggest that easing your absolutes, being more liberal, and continue to ask the tough questions, but also try to accpet consensus and support it, whether or not you agree with the approach. If you want to see something change, work slowly to change it. For example, the JS article is darn good for any article - it is not perfect - and it is feature article material - I've not been a strong advocate one way or the other - but it doesn't have to be perfect to be a feature article. It will never be complete, but it is very good. Another example is Criticisms of Mormonism or Anti-Mormonism - the page is not close to being ready to be live, you were right, but it was a good decision to bring it live based on the current events. And finally, polygamy. Well, not sure how to even tackle that one - you obviously edit there more than anywhere else. You seem to "own" the article, as does Researcher 99. Your work on Word of Wisdom is wonderful, as is your work on Salamandar Letter. Your tough questions on Archaeology and the book of Mormon are needed.

I'm frankly dissapointed at the victim attitude that Researcher99 is taking, and that mediation has failed. I think he equates tough questions with attacks, which is unfortunate. No one is ganging up on him, and he can't be right all the time. He has to learn to let go of some things.

Keep up the good work. I hope you don't take offense, as none was intended. I am very grateful for the editing you do - and I do consider you a friend. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 01:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

Your recent edit on Islam section was good. I reverted before mainly because of the new testament line. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem (and I hope no offense taken either way). My edit was my view - that I personally think that it is easier for people to realize that Muslims believe that the New Testament as it was compiled is corrupted, and most disagree with Pauline Christianity teachings, hense my inclusion as to the "Q" document and the "teachings of Jesus" rather than the teachings of paul. I reckon if I included the history of the new testament as well, that would have been good to clarigy. I do understand the Muslim belief toward "the book" - and the issues with both the old and new testament corruptions. But the simple fact is that they believe the pure teachings of jesus were corrupted - or in other words the Q oral tradition was lost. The history and pauline portions Muslims tend to discount historically. Keep up the good work and happy editing....

Incidentally, which school of thought do you adhere to within Islam? Will help me tailor my comments to your beliefs better. -Visorstuff 19:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I consider myself a adherent of Sunni Islam beliefs, but no particular sub-school of thought. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further explanation...

Why did you revert my edits on the Mormon controversies article? No explanation was provided and I'm not sure what your reasoning was by context. Deadsalmon 00:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

My apologies of not explaining. First, you removed Orson Scott Card as a controversial Mormon. He is quite controversial within Mormonism. He is accused of making homophobic statements by non-Mormons, he is accused of being to "liberal" in his interpretations of Mormon teachings by many Mormons. A good example is his statements that the church doesn't discourage watching "R-rated movies" [6], the use of sex and strong language in his fictional works and so forth. I'm not judging the merit of his statements or his work, but his is considered controversial both within and without of the Church. And I haven't even begun to address his historical research and academic-type publications. He is bright and very smart, but is as controversial (if not more so) than Sheri Dew, and others who are controversial - not anti, but controversial both within and without the church.

Second, you wrote, changed all references from "no longer identifies as Mormon" to "former Church member." In many cases, you may be correct, as their excommunication or whatever, was highly publicized for folks including Sonia Johnson, Ed Decker, but others including Steve Benson and the Tanners, we take their word for it that they asked for their names to be removed. Wikipedia needs proof to say "former church members" whereas it is easier to state that they no longer identify as Mormons. Plus, that is consistent across all controversial folks who have either left the church or no longer identify themselves as Mormons. Plus if they are no longer Mormons, how should they be categorized in a list titled, "List of prominent critics and controversial Mormons." They are former or don't identify?

Some of your punctuation and stylistic changes made at 01:51, 28 September 2005 probably could have stayed, however, I just hit the rollback/revert button which undoes the user edit to the next last edit prior to the user edits.

I really appreciate you asking for a clarification and for your Wiki-etiquette. I see they've been removed again, which is dissapointing and I'll discuss with MrWhipple. -Visorstuff 17:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That's probably the most thorough and helpful explanation I've ever had on Wikipedia. Thanks for taking the time for it — and I completely agree. I'm looking forward to seeing what more comes of this and some of the other articles you've worked on; as an ex-Mormon who is now in seminary, I have an abiding interest in a lot of the same topics you've listed on your profile. For now, it looks like I need brush up on my Mormon controversies. Thanks again. Deadsalmon 04:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - in the past three years, I hope I've learned how to explain things on the wiki. I'd love to have a side conversation wtih you about your decision to leave the Mormon church and enter seminary (I assume for a protestant religion - Trinity University?). Feel free to email me (visorstuff @ yahoo . com). Mormonism is a major part of my life, and I hope we provide a good solid, yet NPOV presentation of Mormonism belief in the articles we've done here on the wiki. I fear that common perceptions of Mormonism - even by those in the church - cause many to stumble or misunderstand something they think they understand. Line upon line, I guess... There are so many who think something is true that are not doctrines of the church, etc. And of course, you know how each word connotates something drastically different in Mormonism - a benefit adn a curse to have English as the primary (or 'revealed') language of a religion. I don't think any other group aside from Judaism and Islam has that benefit/problem, as the power of the original christianity's true spoken aramaic and written koine greek language meanings have been lost and obscured by time... -Visorstuff 13:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Moving this conversation to email. Gracias. Deadsalmon 05:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the kind words Visorstuff. It is disappointing that this nomination fell through, hopefully things will work out better next time I go up for consideration. I'm not sure when this'll be, but yeah, I'll keep editing. I don't see a need to change any my of styles or whatever -- the basis of the opposition appeared to be my negligence of form and unprofessional description. Again, thanks for the support man, I appreciate it. See ya around! Cookiecaper 01:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I put myself back up. The nomination's here. Wouldn't want you to miss out again. ;) Cookiecaper 00:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Thanks. Trödel|talk 02:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hope you stay for a while.

Hi. I just joined Wikipedia a week ago. I've read the threads on many of the mormonism and LDS related articles. You seem to really know your stuff. I hope to help continue the improvement of LDS related articles(i'm a mormon myself). Anyway, I hope you stay and improve Wikipedia for us. You're doin' great.The Scurvy Eye 01:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I should be around for some time. I definitely don't consider myself an intellectual, nor do I aspire to be an apologist. I've been around Wikipedia for a few years, and I believe I'm the longest continuous editor focused on Mormonism, aside from User:Frecklefoot (who only sporatically contributes to Latter Day Saint movement articles). I have no plans of going anywhere. Happy editing and glad to have you on board. We need more people focused on good writing and to make sure the doctrines are taught as pure as can be. -Visorstuff 13:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's why I joined! (to make sure the doctrines that are taught are pure I mean):-) The Scurvy Eye 21:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom

-) I'm back, I think. Tom Haws 20:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. My e-mail address changed. Sprintmail discontinued my poor-boy plan. I'm with gmail for the time being. You can use the Wikipedia e-mail. Tom Haws 23:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mormonism and Judaism

Mormonism and Judaism in CRISIS. Please revert back to revision prior to restruct yesterday! Also, page has been renamed without discussion nor going through the proper channels. Article was retitled from "Mormonism and Judaism" to "Mormons view of Mormonism and Judaism" and has been restructed to attempt to present a mormon POV! Sub sections have been renamed "House of Israel" to "Mormon's view of the House of Israel" The Early Church History has been moved into Jewish Symoblish with-in Mormonism. Yikes Help! User:VChapman Wed 08 UTC

I've responded on your talk page. -Visorstuff 21:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help at Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.

Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. will be featured on the Main Page on the 23rd. Vandalism will probably be frequent that day. Could you help in monitoring the page? The 23rd starts at 7 pm ET on Dec 22nd, since wikipedia goes by UTC. Thx in advance. Trödel•talk 01:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I know it will be a busy day, so it will be a great group effort. I did have the day off but now I have Mon off instead so I have a lot less time than I planned. Trödel•talk 19:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Hey there. I just wanted to say that I appreciate your work and find that I generally tend to agree with your edits and comments on this page. For that reason, I've decided that it's a waste of resources for us both to monitor it, and so I'm unwatching it and leaving it in your hands. If anything comes up and you want a second opinion, or would like me to take a look a the article, just leave me a message and I'll come round. I'll still be watching many of the other Latter-day Saints articles that receive less traffic (and I haven't decided whether or not to drop "Mormon" yet). Keep up the good work! The Jade Knight 02:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - due to my limited time on the wiki (I can only semi-watch for about 50 hours a week), it may be wise to keep it watched, cause I sure won't catch everything. I have about a thousand pages I'm watching, and am feeling stretched thin as it is. Happy editing - and keep up the good work. -Visorstuff 14:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User 68.46.222.74

Hey. I've been watching the Revelation article, and an anonymous user keeps putting in irrelevant scriptures in an attempt to undermine the LDS POV. Initially, he blatantly inserted POV material. He's gotten better in his edits, but he's still trying to have an edit war with me to include irrelevant information to try to make a point. I've posted several times on his talk page, but he's accusing me of using Wikipedia as "a Latter-Day Saint forum". Mind talking to him and explaining that his edits are inappropriate? (No one but me seems to be reverting them, either.) The Jade Knight 08:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm on vacation still, so I'm not actively contributing to Wikipedia this week. However, I've made some deletions on the page - many comments of which are out of place - and is too long. Hope it was helpful - and I agree with your assessment of the nature of the edits. Hope you are watching my page and see my response. -Visorstuff 16:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)