Talk:Temple Lot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Missouri Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.



Contents

[edit] Garden of Eden

Joseph Smith, Jr., the leader and prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement had declared that the area of Independence, Missouri was near the site of the Garden of Eden.

"Garden of Eden" ? I never heard that before. Is there a source for this? --Nerd42 (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

From the scriptures referencing "Adam-ondi-Ahman", no such conclusion can be drawn. What I have heard is that Adam-ondi-Ahman is where Adam dwelt after he was ejected from the Garden of Eden. We don't know how long Adam and Eve wandered before they decided to dwell (settle down) somewhere. Val42 05:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second coming

"...including one temple that Jesus would visit during the events leading up to the Second Coming of Christ."

Is this statement an accurate depiction of LDS belief? It seems to me that, in order for Jesus to visit the temple, the Second Coming would have had to already have happened. How could He visit the temple without first coming again? Ecto 02:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sacred site

"This is a sacred site for all Latter Day Saints." - A rewrite is in order, I think. I've been an active member of the (mainstream) LDS church for 25 years and I've never heard of it, let alone consider it sacred. I'd be willing to bet that most of my church associates don't consider it esepcially sacred, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Church burning incident

The identity of the vandal of the 1990 burning of the church on the Temple Lot has been given as "Jordan Smith" by a number of sources, which I have added. There's been a history of attempts to quash inclusion of this name here and at Church of Christ (Temple Lot) in the past, which have led to edit blocks, and any further attempts to do so by reversions will be duly investigated. Snocrates 21:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I only just now saw the above entry here, and so pardon my not replying until now. It is an outrageous violation of several strict Wikipedia policies (I also changed the headline from the defamatory and derogatory term 'vandal' to the more accurate 'civil rights activist.' If you check the page history,* you will see that Snocrates has been informed that the incident of January 1990 was a political protest, and a public prophecy well within the context of Christianity and the Latter Day Saint movement. In fact, Joseph Smith, Jr. was also incarcerated in Missouri prison on charges including arson and burglary[1][2], and only escaped being "convicted" of such by escaping the jail in April, 1839. Snocrates has excised the accurate information about the January 1990 protest, and insisted an branding the protester a mere "vandal" and "arsonist," which is analogous to branding any civil rights or human rights activists as mere "vandals" or--more typically--as mere "troublemakers."
The following are a couple of hurried attempts to insert into the article more accurate and verifiable information about the church protest in 1990...this type of information deserved to be discussed and edited, not quickly deleted outright...and yet, in both cases, it was quickly deleted by the offending editors...apparently preferring to publish malicious "shoddy reporting" (libel) rather than facts.
Snocrates [and 'theJadeKnight' before him] also deleted a passage which was in careful compliance with WP:BLP, and replaced it with several clearly libelous and defamatory statements and citations. (see excerpt below). I changed his choice of headline for this section, and watch...he'll probably change it back, adding a dismissive comment to his edit summary...as if the most at stake here is an edit war, when to me, it feels more like defamation and invasion of privacy. Once again, I wish some editors would 'mind their own business'...they are not appointed my judge, jury, nor 'executioner,' and yet at times, they seem to believe that is exactly what they are....they want to grossly mischaracterize something which happened 18 years ago, and which they know nothing about except for what they read in particularly inaccurate and libelous "day after" reports published. To this day, no media organization has interviewed the protester, nor researched to any meaningful extent what happened and why on January 1, 1990, and until that happens, ALL the media reports available are categorically "poorly sourced" or "poorly researched" and should be used with great caution, or not at all. How would you like it if you were involved in an incident which came to the public's attention via press reports, but then ALL the so-called "reporters" involved, only interviewed people who particularly despised or misunderstood you and the incident? And then how would you like it if those people made a series of false allegations about you, and then uncorroborated and unverified, those false allegations were published at the top of front pages? And then how would you like it if a steady stream of ill-informed Wikipedia editors kept inserted the false information in Wikipedia articles, while persistently blocking and deleting the FACTS?

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons?t=4.3.#4.6. "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies: We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."

Jsmith 51389 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been taken up at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Need_some_help.21 Snocrates 01:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

---and apparently has been resolved there, courtesy of level-headed remarks by several editors, including Snocrates. And I agree to the "new" headline given this thread by Snocrates, it is a nice compromise between both our earlier efforts. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just restored the information Snocrates deleted on December 3, before citations were added. If the article names the protester, it should also mention that he pleaded not guilty to those particular charges "on First Amendment grounds" and the article should also state that he claimed the incident was a protest: Verifiable facts which are described or alluded to in the existing citations. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to specify which citations refer to this information. The Deseret News article on sentencing makes no reference to the First Amendment, and it is the citation which has been applied to this sentence. Snocrates 22:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
As usual, you're exploiting the fact that to date, no news reporter has actually investigated or "reported" on the protest, choosing merely to record hearsay or accusations made by persons who also have not investigated the incident. If you wonder how that could be so...well...you're doing the same thing: You don't ask questions or do research, you just grab anything which mentions the incident, and post it as if it were factual. Nevertheless, verifiable facts about the protest/prophecy are in two of the links in the article, this one [3] and this one[4]. More importantly, police and court documents contain plenty of strongly-verified information as to the nature of the protest, and its purpose, and exactly what happened and didn't happen. Ideally, a citation could be included which states the name of the case, the case number, and the name and date and nature of the appeal, etc. But it turns out, that information is not readily available...the office in question won't provide it over the phone, and requires that someone mail in a request for it. Would you like to do that? Until that information is obtained, then perhaps a citation could simply say "police and court documents relating to the case." If you don't believe that official police and court documents relating to the case confirm and verify the facts as stated, then it is your responsibility to prove such documents don't exist, or that they are not factual, or that they do not verify the information stated in my edits. It is not my responsibility to be a "gofer" for uninformed skeptics. And incidentally, I would appreciate it if you would provide your own legal name (your "real name") when you are editing 'biographical material about a living person' on Wikipedia. It is only fair. Otherwise, you are making out to be some kind of an 'anonymous judge' of a private citizen, whose name you know, but who doesn't know your name. Fortunately, the Wikipedia Foundation is aware of the problems caused by such anonymity vs. lack of anonymity, and strongly cautions against engaging in 'ego battles' or 'edit wars' with a named person, Wiki-editor or not.
You've been less antagonistic and more professional than many others who have taken a look at this situation; I'm willing to be a respectful co-worker of yours here at Wikipedia, not adverserial. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's how the principle of WP:OR works at WP. I'm not exploiting that fact, I'm just trying to operate within WP guidelines. We can only write about what others have written about; unfortunately, if they are inaccurate or incomplete, so too is WP, but that's the nature of the beast. I don't mind keeping the statements in with a "citation needed" tags for a little while in case someone can turn something up. Snocrates 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind reading and replying to my mention of official documents relating to the case? Thanks. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, would you mind taking a look at the link I provided? Especially the section entitled "Posting of personal information." Thanks. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Also..in lieu of providing your real name on this Talk Page, would you mind explaining why you don't want to include your real name in a discussion on this Talk Page? Thanks. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I did read your entire comment, and I said pretty much what I wanted to say. (1) As for the police/court documents, I assume those would be classified as a primary source, but the question might arise as to whether they qualify as a "published" source under WP:SOURCES. I'm not aware of a similar situation elsewhere on WP and I don't know the answer; to find out I would have to ask someone else on WP or research it out. (2) I'm not engaging in wikistalking by "posting personal information" — that policy is referring to the practice of posting information that is not relevant to an article or a topic and is not reported in reliable sources. I have written the name of a person convicted of a crime as reported in numerous media reports, that's all. (3) I see no reason to post my name here and am not interested in a "tit-for-tat" exchange with respect to that. (4) This is purely my opinion, but I think you need to give this issue a rest, as I plan to. Snocrates 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The user dispute here spilled over into Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#It's official: I'm being 'wiki-stalked'. This talk page discussion should be focused on the article. Cool Hand Luke 20:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should article "Temple Lot" be merged with article "Church of Christ - Temple Lot"?

(I hope it is okay to place this near the top of the page, for now. I don't want it "lost in the shuffle." Feel free to move it to the bottom of this page if necessary). It might be too much of a project for anyone to take on, but ideally, shouldn't there be just one article on the subject of Temple Lot? It seems that for now, both articles pretty well attempt to explain exactly the same history, beliefs, location, etc.

Jsmith 51389 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most editors will look for new topics at the end of the article, so placing it at the top will be more likely to cause it to be "lost in the shuffle."
Second, a better way to do what you wanted above would be like this:
  1. Temple Lot
  2. Church of Christ (Temple Lot)
or inlne like this: Temple Lot and Church of Christ (Temple Lot)
Third, I think that these describe two different things: the property and the religious organization. I don't think that they should be merged, but they should be examined to see if there are any redundancies that could be reduced. However, some other editor may agree with you and want the merge. Wikipedia is a strange animal that you just sort of learn to handle. Welcome to the party. — Val42 (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion the land is not notable by itself, I think this article should be merged into the Church's article. -- lucasbfr talk 21:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Since there are three separate (and conflicting) denominations involved, the Church of Christ name definitely skews the history. If anything I would merge it the other way so that Temple Lot becames the main story. Americasroof (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge : I would oppose a merge of any kind. The land is notable; it has significance to a number of Latter Day Saint organizations and is significant in the early history of the Latter Day Saint movement. The church article is about a specific denomination, which happens to own the property and has branches throughout the United States and in some other countries, not just on the Temple Lot property. While the article on the property may be about as large as it could ever be, the article on the church org. could certainly be expanded in many ways. Snocrates 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge : My beliefs are similar to snocrates's. Just because a piece of property is owned by an organization doesn't mean that they should be merged. The property and the church are each notable in their own right. Also, note that the church is technically called "Church of Christ". the "(Temple Lot)" is just a disambiguator, and while common, is not part of the official name of the church. McKay (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The parcel of land known as the Temple Lot has religious significance to several denominations, not just the one that owns it. A merge would de-emphasize the significance held by the non-owner denominations. You wouldn't merge Kirtland Temple with Community of Christ for the same reasons. – jaksmata 13:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
ok noted, thanks :) I was concerned by the duplicate section that appear in both articles. I guess I'll remove Temple_Lot#Church_burnings, since it was more targeted specifically to the church. -- lucasbfr talk 16:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] URGENT RE: SECTION DELETED

As per advice from several relevant authorities, I have deleted the offending paragraph in the Temple Lot article, and the identical one at 'Church of Christ Temple Lot.' I am not doing this as an amateur Wikipedia editor, but as the private citizen who is being 'outed' and defamed in two Wikipedia articles (so far). I have been advised to delete the offending passage, and then wait and see who exactly restores it. That person (unless it is a SmackBot, an automatic revert), will in turn be 'outed' and 'named' as the subject of a criminal investigation. Yes, this is a 'legal threat,' and I don't appreciate various inept Wikipedia administrators threatening me in order to dissuade me from complaining to law enforcement about a crime which is being committed: the willful invasion of privacy, and defamation of a U.S. Citizen, in contravention to numerous local, state, and federal laws, as well as in contravention to numerous strict and explicit Wikipedia policies regarding inclusion of a person's name in a Wikipedia article. The following excerpt is just one example of Wikipedia guidelines which have been willfully, persistently and openly ignored and defied by Wikipedia editor after Wikipedia editor. Again...whoever restores the defamatory passage which includes my name--or ANY paragraph, sentence or article which includes my name--will be investigated and [hopefully] prosecuted for doing so. In other words, I WILL PRESS CRIMINAL CHARGES against the perpetrator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_names
Privacy of names
Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.
Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger.

Jsmith 51389 (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


Given that there are so many cited media sources which state his name, I can't justify removing omitting it against consensus.. however, we should consider that this sort of situation is what the Privacy of names portion of WP:BLP was intended to address. While I can see both sides of the argument here - I have to think of how I'd feel if it was me, who many years ago whilst in my own little corner of the world, did something that was against the law and happened to get a bit of press coverage, and now many years later I come to discover it is memorialized for eternity on a top 10 website. Despite the legal threats, for which I've blocked Jsmith_51389 - please consider omitting the name from the article as a courtesy to another human being in the digital age, who must support himself & his family - despite things in his past. --Versageek 21:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is a privacy of names issue for the user. We didn't give the age or the middle initial, and the name "Jordan Smith" is so dirt common that we already have an article about a completely unrelated athlete. It's clear from user's comments that he doesn't like the coverage of the event as "arson" and "vandalism," preferring to view it as a racial protest and/or prophecy. That's why user removed the whole paragraph instead of the name. That said, I am not opposed to removing the name, and Snocrates appears to have already revised the paragraph. Cool Hand Luke 05:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cool Hand Luke that the name identity is not the crux of the issue here, judging from the editor's past behavior. I didn't do the revision of the paragraph to exclude the name, someone else did, but I don't object because I don't think it's a big deal. If people want to know the name, it's available in all of the referenced citations, but as Cool Hand Luke says, a "Smith" name without an initial or birth date is so commonplace the decision to include it or not does not make a huge difference to the content of the articles. It's also widely available on this talk page now, so it's not like taking it out of one paragraph is going to restore anonymity. Snocrates 05:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Section on Differences of Temple Lot With Other Denominations

I STRONGLY disagree with the choice to delete the following (which included a referenced quote):

The Temple Lot Church has several major differences with other Latter Day Saint denominations including the Temple Lot is run by the "12 Apostles" with no formal head while the two biggest Latter Day Saint denominations both have Presidents and thus the in view of the Temple Lot group is a sacreligious because it creates a designated Prophet. The temple as conceived by Smith was to be called "The House of the Lord for the Presidency." The Temple Lot church holds that Smith's later teachings are in apostasy.
The differences are so fundamental that Temple Lot has sworn never to cooperate with the other denominations as long as they hold their beliefs. Clarence L. Wheaton, one of the 12 Apostles of the Temple Lot Church, wrote:
It is not for sale at any price . . . to the LDS Church in Utah, nor to any other division of the Restoration. We hold [it] as a sacred trust before the Lord.[1]

The reason why Temple Lot will not let either the LDS or RLDS build on the site is fundamental to understanding the vehamence and intractability of their position. Most outsiders viewing the situation will say "why can't they just get along." I thought the section explained why they can't. I really get the impression that the edits are trying to sanitize history. Americasroof (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

First, please WP:AGF in other editors. Second, this article is about the Temple Lot as a piece of property, not the Temple Lot church. There is an article for that and that's why wikilinks exist. One sentence should be sufficient to state that the Temple Lot church has stated that it will not cooperate with other Latter Day Saint organizations. Snocrates 02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Snocrates, I always assume good faith with your edits. Some important information is getting trashed with the active edits. I'm thrilled that folks are actively editing. This article has needed extensive editing for sometime. I'm usually not up to revert wars and so I drop information over here so it doesn't disappear. The specific difference that I cite refers to the specific name of the building that Smith proposed for the site. Since Temple Lot doesn't recognize a President, there's a big problem and that explains why the positions are so intractable.Americasroof (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I just don't see that detail as too relevant to the article about the property of the Temple Lot. For the article on the church, sure, but why isn't it enough to just say they have stated they won't cooperate? Anyone wanting further information will go to the article about the church. Snocrates 03:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cowdery rather than Smith had the first vision about a New Jerusalem...?

I also STRONG DISAGEE with the deletion of this:

Independence was selected as the site for the temple after Oliver Cowdery, the second elder next to Joseph Smith, had a vision in 1830 that revealed the New Jerusalem was to be built "on the borders by the Lamanites" (Native Americans).[2]

The timeline is important here as Cowdery's vision was in 1830 while the now cited Smith vision in 1831 and Cowdery was to get Smith to support the settlement. This all ties to the excitment associated with the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Americasroof (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If I removed that it was in error. I had no intent to do so. I'll review my edits and see where I messed up and restore it. Snocrates 03:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that it was deleted by an anon. I agree with you that it should not have been deleted as it seems to be the earliest seed of the idea that a temple would be in Independence. Snocrates 03:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Though it should not be implied that after Cowdery's vision the site was chosen, b/c it was not chosen until after Smith's revelations. I think that's what the anon is getting at with his deletion of this. Snocrates 03:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I should have mentioned it was anon. The timeline is important as Cowdery is the one who first stirred things up and was to play a role in later events at the site.Americasroof (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Anon is having a hissy fit about Cowdery not having a vision about this. Since s/he seems incapable of raising this, I will: Where in the citation does it say this? I don't know that it's accurate that he actually had a vision. Snocrates 04:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not having a hissy fit, I'm editing the article with verifiable facts. I don't appreciate you using terminology like "hissy fit," you know that is disrespectful and inappropriate. I can tell that neither of you are Mormons, and certainly not Mormon historians: Oliver Cowdery merely preached the gospel in Missouri and Kansas. He did NOT claim a vision or revelation that the New Jerusalem should be established there, nor does the Marquardt article state as much. You just think it does! Look more closely at it, and then please revert away from your error. 69.152.35.54 (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Lol; why don't we let Americasroof respond to my question? I think he may have simply misinterpreted what the article said, and when it was quoting one of Smith's revelations, he thought it was quoting Cowdery's. It is obvious that you are not having a hissy fit: that's why you're maligning other editors and their "qualifications". You might be surprised if you knew what mine are. Snocrates 04:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This evidently is the sentence in the Marquardt article you have both misunderstood: "In a revelation originating at Fayette, New York, Oliver Cowdery, the second elder next to Joseph Smith, was called to "go unto the Lamanites [Indians] and preach" the gospel, and cause the church to be established among them." Nowhere does that article or any serious article about Mormon chuch history claim that Oliver Cowdery received a revelation about a New Jerusalem, before Joseph Smith did.
And regardless of what either of you decide, please do not flame me at my Talk Page or here. 69.152.35.54 (talk)
Lol, so instead of changing the name of "Oliver Cowdery" to "Joseph Smith", you perform wholesale reverts which end up reversing a lot of work I put in to citation management. I suggest that that is not the most productive methodology, champ. Snocrates 04:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's the specific paragraph we're talking about:
In September 1830, five months after Joseph Smith, Jr. organized the restoration Church of Christ, one of the eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon, a man named Hiram Page claimed to receive revelations "concerning the upbuilding of Zion" and other matters through a certain peepstone.10 "Finding, however, that many especially the Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery were believing much in the things set forth by this stone" Joseph Smith inquired of God concerning this matter and Page was told that what had been written was not of him.11 In a revelation originating at Fayette, New York, Oliver Cowdery, the second elder next to Joseph Smith, was called to "go unto the Lamanites [Indians] and preach" the gospel, and cause the church to be established among them.12 Concerning the city called New Jerusalem they were told that "it is not revealed, and no man knoweth where the city shall be built, but it shall be given hereafter. Behold I say unto you, that it shall be on the borders by the Lamanites."13
I interpreted it to say Cowdery had the visions and jumped on the September 1830 date. I could be wrong since the graph is not clear and you might be right about the timeline with Smith. But the graph does point to an interesting facet not yet discussed as it mentions that Hiram Page received revelation about upbuilding of Zion. Page was to be among those who founded the Temple Lot denomination and thus the September 1830 with Page's name should be included. Americasroof (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I STRONGLY AGREE with Americasroof...that mention of Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery's experiences and views in 1830 are interesting and relevant...I mean, I didn't know about that angle until this 'dispute' arose here, and am intrigued by it. Still, technically the link to the Marquardt article introduces that information sufficiently. If you want a sentence or two indicating that JS's March, 1831 revelation simply was not a "bolt out of the blue," I would go along with that. 69.152.35.54 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Snocrates is right, we're "almost there" so far as improving the section in question...but we're not there yet. This is not true:
"In 1830, Joseph Smith had a vision that revealed the New Jerusalem was to be ::::built "on the borders by the Lamanites" (Native Americans).[3]
In 1830, what happened was that Oliver Cowdery was called to go on a mission to Missouri & Kansas, amidst talk of a New Jerusalem being established, somewhere in the United States. And the "on the borders by the Lamanites" mention was not until the June, 1831 revelation (which is cited in the article). 69.152.35.54 (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Jackson County Info

I also disagree with the deletion of this:

Smith, who was in Kirtland, Ohio, mustered a band of 200 called Zion's Camp in 1834 to protect the settlement. Many members of the group suffered from an outbreak of cholera and the non-Saint attacks in Independence more vicious.
In the face of the attacks The followers were to move across the Missouri River to Clay County, Missouri where they were to retain David Rice Atchison as an attorney in settling the claims on the sell of personal property.
After abandoning Independence, Smith was to revise the City of Zion plans and send them to Kirtland, Ohio where a slightly larger temple of similar design to the one planned for Independence was built at the Kirtland Temple.

This reflects Smith's effort to defend the temple. Wikipedia currently doesn't have any articles specifically on the eviction from Jackson County. I have on my to do to write a City of Zion article but haven't quite got around to it so I'm dumping the stuff here. Smith's retaining of David Rice Atchison (who has an interesting claim of U.S. "President for a Day") to settle the Jackson County claims plays into the Mormon War timeline. The section on Kirtland being nearly identical to what was planned in Jackson County is pertinent here. Americasroof (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited claims

In the church burnings/protest incidents section, these sentences have been added. They contains a lot of claimed facts, but the newspaper article that is cited in the sentence before really doesn't address any of these issues, except a church representative does say they were trying to have him deported: "A member of the LDS Church,[citation needed] the man had in the year previous fathered a son with a female parishioner of the Temple Lot church[citation needed] and was protesting attempts by the Temple Lot church leadership to have him incarcerated and/or deported as a result.[citation needed] Later in the year, the man was deported from the United States to Central America.[citation needed]"

For these types of claims, I suggest we need to quickly get citations for them, or else they should be removed.

I realise they were earlier cited with some websites, which were removed by a bot as spam, but those aren't reliable references for claims of this nature. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protest Incidents vs. Church burnings

Changing the subhead from "Church burnings" to "Protest incidents" is inaccurate. The various attempts to destroy the building on the lot have been with aim that if the building is destroyed it would seemingly clear the way for the New Jerseleum Temple to built thus clearing the way for the Biblical end of times. In the same manner, Temple Mount in Jeruseleum is always the target of attempts to destroy it in order to fulfill the end of the world prophecy. Likewise, I'm not real happy about not including the name of the last person who dressed up in an Indian costume and danced around building as it burned. If he had succeeded in bringing on the end of times, then we might have wanted to know his name. Americasroof (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a [response to my comment that was deleted because it was a trolling post from a jsmith sock puppet (mentioned above). I am putting a link to the post so there is a record. Americasroof (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Americasroof, I look forward to your future efforts of destroying the Temple Lot building so that you can start construction of the temple ... :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Temple Lot in Independence as first dedicated site..

I suggest that the beginning text at the start of the Temple Lot article be changed:

From: The Temple Lot is a planned temple location in the Latter Day Saint movement in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri

To: The Temple Lot, located in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri is the first site that was dedicated for the construction of a temple in the Latter Day Saint movement.


I suggest also the following text be added at the end of this sentence that is in the History section:

Smith was to reveal: "The temple shall be reared in this generation, for verely this generation shall not pass away until an house shalt be built unto the Lord and a cloud shall rest upon it.[1]

(Suggest that the following text be added after the above sentence)

Several temple sites were dedicated within a few years after this first site. The Kirtland Ohio Temple became the first temple in the Latter Day Saint movement to be completed and dedicated in 1836.(DavidRichardHall (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)).


Contributed by:


DavidRichardHall dhall@novatek.com 801-374-6222