User talk:COGDEN/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following material was archived November 23, 2004:

Contents

[edit] Temple page

By the way, I noticed that you removed washings and annointings from the temple ordinances performed. Although part of the Endowment, I kept it seperate for some other doctrinal reasons, and (vague/generic enough) to represent other ordinances performed in temples. Could you add it back in? Much appreciated. I like your other edits (aside from the creation of the new page). Visorstuff 22:49, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Please Introduce yourself.

Would you mind giving a little background info about yourself on your user page? Thanks. B 19:18, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Sure. I'll work on it. Thanks.
An IP lawyer, Mormon, chemist and a democrat! You are much needed here. Have you read any of my comments on the Church's right to privacy regarding the temple and have any opinion abou that? Maybe that's a little out of your expertise, but it's not my area of expertise either. B 20:47, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks. I do have some things to say about the IP issues, but I don't want it to be taken as legal advice. Maybe I'll outline the relevant copyright law in the Endowment (Mormonism) page or the [[Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page. COGDEN 20:39, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC).

[edit] Mormon Fundamentalism

I noted that you are looking for some sources of information. Here are a few possibilities, some of which are, no doubt, quite opinionated:

Thanks. COGDEN 20:39, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC).

COGDEN, I am somewhat close to FLDS ism and I may be able to work with you on related articles. Hawstom 07:25, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am trying to get some of my contacts to visit and edit the fundamentalist related pages. Hawstom 22:11, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of articles about Mormonism

I noticed you are creating a number of pages about Mormon offshoots - if you would be so kind to include them on the List of articles about Mormonism page, that would be awesome (plus saves me a lot of time!) Keep up the good work. Visorstuff 20:15, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Will do. COGDEN 20:39, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC).

Hey, would you put a list of pages you are working on creating on your user page? Just don't want to duplicate primary creation and research if it's not needed. Plus it gives us a good idea of where you are headed next, so we can contribute. Thanks Visorstuff 16:21, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sure.COGDEN 04:03, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Links

I've noticed that the four or five people who regularly contribute to Mormonism pages have the tendency to leave Wiki links in for pages/concepts that we feel need to be addressed, but fail to create the page that the link points to.

I propose that we clean this up. I've compiled a list of pages that need to be added or unlinked. Going forward, if you add in a link for a page that you intend to create, please create a stub page and fill in the basic info or bullet outline of what you feel it should cover and then include it on the List of articles about Mormonism so we can all contribute and finish the pages quicker.

I’ve included a reference page for each subject/blank page, however, I found at least two or three similar Wiki links (or reference pages) that point to the same subject/blank page for most of the links. Visorstuff 22:31, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Formulating a Controversies Convention

COGDEN, please come on over to User_talk:Eloquence and help us think through a convention for dealing with controversies. (Should I perhaps start a page for this topic?) Hawstom 08:41, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I left a comment today. COGDEN 03:47, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Well put. And I like your recent work. It needed to be done. Hawstom 06:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You guys are doing a good job fixing the mess that was created. Thanks for the idea - I think it is a model of how to address these issues in other controversial pages. -Visorstuff 08:32, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. COGDEN 03:16, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] LDS section on the Israelite article

Danny has asked that I take a look at the LDS section on the Israelite article. I've made some revisions. Please review. The article on chosen people also needs an LDS perspective. B 20:51, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Council of Fifty

Since you seem to have more time to edit than I would like to have, could you start a Council of Fifty article when you get a second? -Visorstuff 08:28, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Done. COGDEN 03:16, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Patriarchal Priesthood

See my question regarding your edit on Talk:Priesthood (Mormonism). —Noldoaran (Talk) 19:52, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mormonism and Christianity

The Mormonism and Christianity is in trouble, I think. Perhaps it is an unavoidable entropy magnet. I notice you have been an editor. If you get a moment, perhaps you could take some time to weed it so it is more of a credit to this encyclopedia. The subject isn't my forte, and I don't understand the page all too well, or I would make an attempt. Is there even hope for that article? It seems a hopeless mess. Hawstom 23:09, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's definitely hope. I've already done a lot of weeding. I think there is some useable material in the "entropic" parts of the article, but they need to be structured and made coherent. COGDEN 19:07, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Looking a lot better now. I see hope. And extensive talk has really helped build respect. But unfortunately I've added to the bloat. Can you help trim? Hawstom 19:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. Can we get together to discuss the intro to Mormonism and Christianity? There are a few things I'd like to understand better about the 11:35, 17 Jun 2004 edits you made. Drop me a line if you get a chance. Tom 04:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Should we discuss on the Talk:Mormonism and Christianity page? COGDEN 04:58, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Word of Wisdom

Nicely done. That page has been bugging me for a while. -Visorstuff 02:44, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Zeus

I loved the bit about Zeus. It fits nicely. Mkmcconn 16:48, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Standard Works: LDS VS CoC

I am bit confused on the "Standard Works" I know both churches share the Book of Mormon and the D&C. The point that confuses me is the that the LDS Church accepts the KJV, while the CoC accepts the IV/JST. Does this mean the CoC rejects the KJV?

Thanks!

--iHoshie 19:00, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

The issue is much more complex than that. While the LDS church does not 'use' the other translations than the KJV as part of their canon, they do not reject the others. Even Apostles in recent times such as Jeffrey R. Holland have used other versions in General Conference talks (which the Church at large considers scripture). The CoC accepts the IV as part of their canon, but are much more liberal in accepting other American protestant ideas, including other translations of the bible, in their teachings. While the KJV is not part of their canon, it is often used (along with the RSV, NIV, etc.) in weekly meetings - much more than in the LDS Church - depending upon the location and conservativeness of the congregation. In fact, some CoC congregations will tell you that the book of mormon is inspired, but do not place it on equal ground with the bible, as the LDS Church does. -Visorstuff 00:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Media Wiki Cults

Hello Cogden, I hope you can vote to keep the Template:Cults on Vote for deletion of media wiki Cults Thanks in advance. The wikimedia cults will refer to all articles that are essential to understand cults. I think these are Cult of personality, Propaganda , Fundamentalism , Guru Shepherding, Communal reinforcement. It will be added as a footer to all the articles that deal primarily with cults i.e. Cult , Purported cults, Christian countercult movement , Anti-cult movement , Exit counseling , Thought reform , Deprogramming , Mind control & Brainwashing The difference between a See also list is that the wikimedia cults refers to essential articles. The See also list will also refer to side issues. It will not be placed as a footer under individual groups because of POV issues. Andries 18:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Smith image

Would it be bad to include the painted portrait of Joseph Smith along with the photograph on th Joseph Smith page? Benefits I see include:

  • Promote the understanding among JS adherents that the likeness of Joseph Smith is not a matter of mystery. Having two separate images would bear witness.
  • Promote the understanding among Latter Day Saints that the likeness of JS was as shown in the photograh and portrait.
  • Give a nod to the fact that in 1840, painted portraits were still the preferred mode of likeness representation.

Would it be worthwhile to have a section in the JS article on the Likeness or Appearance of Joseph Smith? I think the subject of the popular loss of the JS likeness is a most interesting one. Why does the LDS populace, including artists, fail to use his true likeness? Is it not handsome enough? Is it too beady-eyed for their tastes? Is it not enough like the death mask? I will cc these remarks and questions to the article talk. Tom 18:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Random Note of Encouragement

I would just like to say that you seem to have made a lot of content-rich articles on controversial LDS subjects that are really well done. That, and you should keep up the good work. CHL 17:13, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. COGDEN 19:08, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Voudun vs Voodoo

I took a look at the talk page for Voodoo, and at the naming conventions, and I suppose I'll change it back on List of religions. My objection to the word voodoo is that it's got such a horror movie connotation. Most people think zombies and voodoo dolls and such when someone says voodoo. On the other hand, voudun as a word is a little more neutral, and it is what practicioners call it. But voodoo is more common, and people seem to agree on it, so I'll change it back. PMC 03:39, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals on your user page

Wow, you are getting it from both sides. First a vandal unfairly criticizes you by implicitly questioning your Mormon "loyalty", and then within a matter of days another vandal explicitly belittles you with an unfair remark that your conscience is brainwashed by the Church. You have my sympathy. —B|Talk 00:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)