User talk:Storm Rider

New user name welcome

SR, I took the liberty of copying the talk above to this page. If it was in error, please let me know. I appreciate your patience with me. Also, if you are the editor I welcomed above, please drop by and give your two cents at Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#POV_edits Tom - Talk 04:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And don't forget you can sign your name with either three tildes (name only) or four tildes (name and date). Hope to see you around for many years (even if only occasionally). Tom - Talk 04:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and because you're apparently interest in LDS issues, do look at Category:LDS stubs. Stubs are incomplete articles needing work and expansion. Some of these are embarassingly bad, so I hope you can help.

Adding to Tom's above list, User:COGDEN is also a prolific contributer to LDS issues, and I am to a much lesser extent. Cool Hand Luke 04:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You might not want to sign things as "Michael", because a vandal went by that name for a long time (he's now got a legitimate account, User:Mike Garcia), and so the name carries widespread recognition and notoriety. But I suppose it's no big deal, just wanted you to be aware of that. Everyking 21:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Senseless chatter at Mormon

Do not hesitate, in good Wikipedia fashion, to call such activity vandalism. You need not be discrete about such obvious maliciousness. Of course all sincere efforts at contribution should be honored, and even vandals treated better than they deserve. But fear not to call a spade a spade. "Reverting vandalism" Tom - Talk 16:45, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Carthage Jail

A bit of chit chat here. Have you been to Carthage Jail? It seems to me that if anything could be comfortable on June 27 along the Mississippi River, the jailer's personal bedroom would have been. It was actually a nice personal touch and good accommodations, from what I could see. Tom - Talk 21:09, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

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 Thx in Adv --Trodel 06:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Smith and "Great Americans"

Hi Storm Rider: In response to your email, I deleted the category off the Joseph Smith article as part of some category deletion housekeeping. Previously on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, Wikipedians voted to delete the category "Greatest American Nominees." That vote is archived here. I wasn't part of that vote, but after the vote was closed, I deleted the category off some hundred pages of different Americans. I certainly didn't single out Joseph Smith, if that's what you were thinking. Hope this helps; if you have any more questions, just reply on my talk page. Regards, Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 00:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Smith and Prophecy

Let's flush them out and make them say what they really mean. We will allow them to ruin their own reputations. Jgardner 1 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind remarks on my User_talk page, Storm Rider. Keep an eye on Mørmøn and Gabrielsimon while I'm away. --MrWhipple 2 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)

Impressive

I noticed your comments on a "difficult" user's talk page, referring to edits to the articles on Joseph Smith and Mormonism. You kept your cool in the face of stubborn and confusing replies, and continued to be polite and well-reasoned. What a shame there aren't more editors like you. Joyous (talk) July 6, 2005 20:58 (UTC)

Love Bombing

Now that I've seen the other "contributions" of User:24.252.38.14 I can see why you readily reverted them Due to the edits with egregious libels that are nothing but vandalism, and to several previous warnings (starting with yours), I blocked the IP briefly. I'm sorry that I didn't realize the situation sooner, though I think that the love-bombing article is ok in the end. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:43, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

COJCOLDS Links

Curious if you have an opinion for the poll at Talk:Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Justification_of_links, or if you wanted to weigh in. I'd like to get this settled. -Visorstuff 23:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

LDS article revert

Hi Storm Rider. Sorry about the revert. I was just flicking through changes and thought it was an ill-conceived edit-- didn't look at the talk page first. Sorry.

BTW, I do think that the article should mention something about how Mormons fit into religious taxonomy, as not everyone knows they are a "Christian" religion, whether so designated by themselves or others. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem; your edits are still very much appreciated. It is a unique problem for WIKI. As we look as general articles based on issues of faith there is a wide divide between what is perceived as orthodox and everything else. In those that are orthodox the article simply presents the subject and then will either refer to "conflicts" or the "con" of the subject at the end of the article or is linked to articles that address that subject matter. However, on those articles centered on unorthodox issues of faith...Mormonism for example, it seems that it is imperative that critical issues must be addressed immediately. If not, then the article is violating NPOV. I find it fascinating. If we include early in the article that Mormons state they are Christian, then other editors believe we must immediately address those claims that Mormons are not Christians. I agree that it should be included, but not immediately and certainly not in the introductory paragraphs. I appreciate most how the Catholic church article addresses critical issues; it is linked at the end of the article. That is where I hope to end up on articles about churches out of the mainstream. Thanks again and I hope to see more of your edits. Storm Rider 16:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

S.R. – I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. The comment I left was just to clarify that most other “Christian” churches refer to the Mormons as a “cult” because there seemed to be some confusion on the page. – Zntrip 20:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Grace of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PS - I like Glenn Beck and Steve Young! KHM03 23:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Restorationism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PS - I'll betcha that the other Restorationist groups all felt that they were directed by God, just like Smith...and Luther, Calvin, Wesley, John Paul II, etc. KHM03 23:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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

"Purportedly"

Thanks for the note. I've been monitoring vandalism today and I think I mistook that change for a malicious change when it wasn't. Deadsalmon 00:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment on sin

Thanks for responding to my comment. I have to admit that my comment is just a repeating of what I believe we are taught. I find it a constant struggle to live up to what seems humanly impossible. I usually fail. --Elliskev 02:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Storm - thanks for restoring the anon's deletion on DNA testing. I've been trying to talk to him and he did eventually respond on the talk page. It will be hard to avoid the 3R's on all these related pages at this rate. Best WBardwin 07:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Heavenly Mother

Storm Rider, I am an LDS apostate who (atypically) harbors nothing but warm feelings for the church I left more than 20 years ago. I certainly have no wish to include anything in what I write or edit that is inaccurate. So, with that in mind, let me ask a couple of questions about my edits which you removed today:

• For what reason did you delete the reference to "Heavenly Mother"? That Elhoim has a wife (at least one, anyway) with whom he has spiritual children had been openly discussed in my ward before I left, around 1980. True, it was not something that the bishop enjoyed hearing about from the podium (I always thought for fear that it might scare off visitors, but that's just speculation), but in our elders quorum this was openly acknowledged. Is this no longer taught?
• I do think I understand your rv of the bit about African fence sitters. I remember this being discussed as well (particularly after President Kimball's revelation of June 8, 1978—which I remember well because it was my birthday, though the announcement did not come until the next day), but I don't remember it being taught as dogma—it was just seen as being a theory, similar to the Catholic "teaching" of limbo (which, contrary to popular opinion—even amongst Catholics—has never been church teaching). I guess it had just been a popular explanation of the Chuch's exclusion of blacks from the priesthood.

Anyway, I wonder about the whole article (which I just came across on a Random Article hit today) anyway. I mean, with section titles like "Correct Disagreements on Doctrine" and "Incorrect Disagreements on Doctrine", you know something's being poorly written. Besides, I haven't looked yet, but I doubt that most religions have a similar "Criticisms" page. Anyway, look forward to your comments. Unschool 03:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Unschool, thank you for contacting me. I always enjoy talking with other editors on WIKI. As I was reading your entry, the word apostate struck me "oddly". I realized that I had not considered the term in quite some time. For me, apostate is such a strong term. I may incorrectly put too much emphasis on my interpretation; an apostate not only falls away, but vigourously preaches against the Gospel. Someone who just falls away is perceived to have found a degree of truth that is "alive" for them. It is like a member becoming a believing Catholic. They have found a wonderful doctrine that fulfills their needs and is alive with the Spirit. I just don't consider them apostate, but I suppose the technical defnition applies. I digress; whatever happened may you be at peace.

The African thing was way off base. I have been a member for over 40 years. Some would consider me well read, but I am not a doctor of church history or doctrine. In brief, I may be wrong about some things, but I strive to state the truth about Mormonsim and the LDS church. However, I have never heard that particular belief that you cited. It is not official church doctrine and thus, should not be included in an encyclopedic article on the Mormonism. Just because someone states something in Elders Quorum does not mean it should be stated as doctrine. It is hoped that all members are students of the truth, but in learning the truth we must all abandon misunderstandings and false doctrine. What you remember was simply false doctrine.

Mother in Heaven: now that is a wonderful subject about which very little has been written; almost nothing in fact. It is logical for LDS to believe in a mother in heaven. We believe that we were created in the image and likeness of God, that families are forever, and that the union of a man and woman is ordained of God. I could go on, but I am trying to be brief. However, we do not preach about our Heavenly Mother, but we also do not deny her existence. In summary, we believe she exists, but we know nothing about her and are not taught anything. It is a belief, but it is not doctrine. I think the article should be limited to doctrine.

I agree with you totally. How does one have correct and incorrect disagreements about doctrine? Doctrine is either congruent or it is not. I hope I explained my reasoning sufficiently. I look forward to further edits and assistance on making the article better. Storm Rider 18:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

saints

Thanks for your question about "canonization" vs. "glorification" of saints in Orthodoxy. Bearing in mind that I'm still relatively new, I think that "glorification" is the preferred term, but I wouldn't be surprised if some Orthodox talk about canonization as well. We never really enumerated our sacraments until sometime during or after the Middle Ages when we heard the Roman Catholics had seven sacraments, and suddenly we had seven too... plus some others. The main difference that I can tell besides names is that the Orthodox process for identifying a "saint" is less formal, and less rigid compared to the Roman Catholic process. We don't have a single Pope or Patriarch who has to approve all of them, so some saints might get approved just by the Russians or by the Greeks, and then maybe after a few decades more by the rest of the Orthodox too. Russian saints get paid more attention to in Russia than in Greece, and vice versa. Local believers may start treating someone as a saint before it's "official." My favorite story is of Bishop Innocent being caught in a storm near Spruce Island off the coast of Alaska, where a monk named Herman used to live. He called out "Herman, save us!" although the monk had died I think about three years before. The storm suddenly became calm, and Herman is now known as St. Herman of Alaska. He died in 1837, but wasn't canonized until I think the 1980s... but Innocent prayed to him and was answered just a few years after his death. Hope this helps. Wesley 04:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject LDS

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

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

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

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

Thanks for all that you do -Trevdna 15:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows massacre

Thank you for your recent efforts on the article. Although I haven't had much Wiki time, I have been keeping an eye on the "action." I would appreciate your comments on my suggested outline/content for the article, which should allow us to include much of the current information (a good edit is always useful) and other information as well. Thank you. WBardwin 09:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

Since you said you read the thread, could you please give me a brief summary of what the fight is all about. I have noticed a lot of arguments there in the past week or so, but didn't want to get too involved. But now that I am interested, I am too far behind. So can you just briefly summarize what the debate is. If you want to just tell me to "go read the thread yourself", I understand too. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Rider, thanks for the summary. I might stop by sometime tomorrow to see if I can help out mediating the situation. It's definitely not good to be fighting like this, is all I know. My interest has been piqued. Thanks again for the recap. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Storm Rider, thanks for your efforts in trying to reach a compromise.

Yes, I do reject the concept of a "secular scholar", but not that of a "Christian scholar". There are indeed Christian scholars with Christian biases but how much their biases affect their "scholarliness" differs. There are all kinds of scholars: Muslim scholars, Jewish scholars, Buddhist scholars, atheist scholars, pagan scholars, anti-semitic scholars, anti-Christian scholars etc. all with their own different biases and all with differing capacities of handling that bias. There thing there is not is a "secular scholar" (or rather all are secular scholars, at least when writing about secular matters), especially if - and that is the main issue - this is to imply that such a "secular scholar" is without a bias. Nobody is without bias or predjudice and that is good so ... the dark days of Enlightenment when some hid their (unconscious) bias behind "impartiality" are fortunately past and nowadays scholars are encouraged to face their biases. Unfortunately, Enlightenment thinking (of the kind I described) continues with some people.

Regardin Gio's references, I have to differ. He has given a few references granted, but that doesn't mean that the ideas are not fringe. If they are significant minority views they without a doubt should be included.

I wouldn't classify them as secular. They have their biases and affiliations and philosophical dispositions. That's fine and dandy but should either be brought out in the open or ignored but not covered under a misnomer.

Also, I never denied that there are theories about the influence of MCs on Christianity (though I myself don't subscribe to them), but, at least in the beginning, some phrases indeed seemed to call the MCs the mothers of Christianity.

Indeed the distinction according to faith is dangerous - regarding Wiki editors it is against Wiki policy, and regarding scholars it is disingenous to do it with those of one side and not those of the other side. And I propose to do with no side.

Cheers, Str1977 18:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Storm Rider, I don't know where to put my reply so I'll put it here.

You are right, Paul was the greatest missionary of the faith. He was not a member of the original body of the Twelve, headed by Peter, that governed the church. The term Apostle is ambiguous as it can refer to one of the Twelve, or a witness of the resurrected Christ, or a messenger bringing the good news to others (apostle literally means emissinaries, compare with epistle). Paul was a witness of the resurrected Christ in Damascus and the Twelve accepted him as an Apostle on that regard. As a missionary (Apostle of the Gentiles) he also had authority if leadership, appointing local church leaders (bishops and elders).

Now, in the passage in the article "under the leadership of the Apostles Peter and Paul", leadership is not actually meant as denoting church government but as the two Apostles leading the way in this opening process: Peter's vision in Joppa, Paul's missionary work, the Apostles' council. Also, the two are considered the two chief personalities at this early stage up until their martyrdom in Rome. Hence, many churches are dedicated to Peter and Paul.

Cheers, Str1977 09:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Thanks. Well to archive is just like creating any other page, just type the name that you want in the URL, and it will ask if you want to create the page. So if you want to create an archive of your talk page, you could type in... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Storm_Rider/Archive1 and it will create the page.

Or you could type the same thing in the search thing on your left. User talk:Storm Rider/Archive1

That should do it. Cuñado - Talk 18:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Christian

Ehh, I thought that the edit was of debateable quality quite apart from the grammar. It was late at night, and I didn't want to have to think through it, so I just reverted under the pretense of grammar (which was pretty bad--your edits are probably going to look like trolling to people who are just skimming through diffs if you throw grammar like that into it).

I guess I didn't give your edit the thought that it deserved. My bad.

Now, as to the content of the edit... Born again Christians don't feel that a specific interpretation of the Bible is needed in order to be Christians. Born-again Christians differ on several points (alcohol, cigarettes, how often and how Communion should be delivered... I could give dozens more), yet they don't consider each other to be any less Christian because of their differences. The important thing (to born-again Christians) is that one follows Jesus, and tries to the best of one's ability to obey his commands as best one can. Interpretations have little to nothing to do with it. See 1 Corinthians 8 for my backing on this important point[1]. In light of this, I'm going to take out your edit again. =/ If you still disagree, let's move this to Talk:Christian. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Now, that's a good point.

My best response to that is from Matthew 16:24, where Jesus says plainly that to come after him (to become a Christian), one must simply deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus. Born-again Christians (not those who may just consider themselves born again, but truly born-again Christians) accept the Bible as the #1 source of truth. Remember Matthew 10:39, too.

As far as the acceptance of your Christian-hood by other Christians... well, I'd advise you to think about it from their perspective. Remember that they are often drawn closer to Jesus through prayer and meditation over Scripture... from their perspective, anyone who had the same feelings towards Jesus as they did, anyone who knew him as their Lord and Savior, anyone who followed him like they do (and we're talking real Christians here, not the plastic sort of whom Jesus will one day say "I never knew ye") would be able to discern "lies" like the Book of Mormon due to that person's closeness to the source of all truth--God. (From the perspective of "plastic" Christians, the decision is even easier. You're not one of their little group; therefore, you're going to Hell--unless these plastics happen to be the flower-people sort who claim that nobody, besides maybe Hitler, is going to go to Hell.) In any case, the dogma of the "wolves in sheep's clothing" can often blind people who really do put Jesus first to different ways of following Jesus. Not that there's "many ways to God"--John 14:6 still applies. But as Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians, followers of God can have different viewpoints. Heck, Catholics and Protestants have an enormous gap between the two of them; yet, probably 90% or more of each consider the other to still be Christian. There's no perfect church; the only perfection is in Jesus.

So, basically, those are my thoughts on why Mormons like you are rejected, regardless of whether or not you really are trying to follow Jesus. (Remember that Jesus never said "Accept me to get into heaven"; he said "Follow me!") As far as the Trinity is concerned, as I was never raised in any other sort of environment, I don't know how one could have the proper concept of Christianity and Jesus without it; but I suspect that's more my ignorance than anything. I guess you should continue trying to follow Jesus, and remember Matthew 16:25: "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it." By giving your life to Jesus, you're finding it. Remember on the day of judgement that we will all give an account of our actions to God. If you follow him with all your heart, Jesus has promised that you will find eternal life. From my perspective as a born-again Christian, that's enough to qualify you as a Christian. Your thoughts? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're continuing to make ever more sense. I totally agree with much of what you said. On the subject at hand, I think that, again, the dogma of some Christians is shutting the minds of those who are truly following God. I don't know, however, if you could safely call that an "interpretation of Scripture".

I can't go further into your comments for now, unfortunately. Life beckons and all that. I do really appreciate your thoughts, however... they're pretty enlightening. I'll post a proper reply later. In any case, thanks again, and God bless! :) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, here goes my feelings on the matter (as a born-again Christian) as best as I can express them. If a person follows Jesus, and gives Him their life (losing their life on His behalf) He has promised that that person will find eternal life. I personally can't think of any better definition of Christian than a follower of Christ. If someone who belongs to the LDS Church claims that they're a follower of Christ, who the heck am I to judge them, saying whether or not they're really a Christian? That's God's decision to make on whether or not they're sincere. I think I really do get your point here. I'll admit that I never ever thought about it like this before. Thanks a lot.

I do have to say, however, that most self-proclaimed Mormons that I know (and there's quite a few around my hometown, the Tri-Cities of Washington) are likely not really following Jesus. Of course, that's true of Protestants and Catholics, as well. I wonder if being a Christian is something that you can simply call yourself, and have that be enough. I don't think so--I think that one has to really be following after Jesus Christ. But that's not going to be a very politically correct, neutral-point-of-view (not to mention verifiable!) definition to put into the Wikipedia article. I think that your philosophy of what a Christian is is the same. In light of this, how do you think we should restructure the Christian article?

Again, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. This is really, really fascinating stuff. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your message about "feeding them"

Hi, Storm Rider. You're quite right. Mea maxima culpa. In my defence, I'll say it's much harder to stop in the middle than at the beginning. I'll try to remember that for the future, but I don't guarantee success! ;-) Cheers. AnnH ♫ 13:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Talk Vote (again)

We're approaching a consensus I think will stick. Please come and vote. --CTSWyneken 14:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy

Your rename of Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy in the middle of the ongoing discussion (which clearly had no consensus) lead to everyone feeling that the correct way to express their opinion was to rename the page to whatever name they favored (all different, of course). Since page renaming can be pretty ugly stuff, and occasionally leads to confusion that in turn leads to lost edit histories, I hope that you will let such discussions reach their own conclusions in the future. Thanks. -Harmil 02:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts and you are welcome to them. However, several editors agreed with the change and I clearly stated what I had done and why. Agreed, we did have an editor who I view as a vandal change it to something with which no one was happy. I see a problem that it was not immediately reverted to the changed title, but I am not against the new title created by T-Rex. The old title clearly was not supported. Has this resulted in more debate; yes. I plead guilty. Let's move on. Storm Rider 05:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You have been one of the leading contributors to the disscussion on this article. I would like to encourage you to cast a vote for the alternative names that are currently being proposed. Thanks for your help on this matter --T-rex 04:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Talk Runoff Vote

Our hopefully last vote on this paragraph is underway. --CTSWyneken 11:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus article, paragraph 3

Please check out my proposed revision to ensure that this represents our compromise with Aiden and others. Arch O. La 20:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just testing. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sealings

Since I have your gracious blessing to edit Mormon articles, perhaps you would be interested in explaining why LDS missionaries would want to seal the unbelieving and rebellious? bcatt 01:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Hmmm, maybe I get it...is it that their soul will be sealed to a purgatory of sorts (whatever the LDs equivalent is) awaiting judgement by God, similar to, but not the same as, the manner in which Mormons may be sealed to each other for togetherness in the afterlife? First time I read it, it seemed like it meant that missionaries could perform celestial marriages on infidels, and I can't think of why they would want to do so. bcatt 01:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Bcatt, you would be surprised at how munificent others can be when one asks a question.

This is an interesting question that is not directly taught to missionaries i.e. "go out an seal those who are rebellious and unbelieving". However, in this context, to seal is an expression that means "to bind" or "to secure". The properly authorized servants of God have the power to seal the unbelieving and rebellious to judgment and punishment (compare with D&C 88:84; 133:71-71. In the NT look at Matt 10:14,15, Mark 6:11). This negative "sealing" can be a literal action as demonstrated in the New Testament or it can be figurative, as when missionaries remove the excuse of ignorance from those who reject the gospel and thus leave them exposed to the law of justice. LDSs feel a committment to share the Gospel with others; sometimes in scripture it is called warning your neighbor. It should be noted, however, that such a negative "sealing" does not override the law of agency, nor is such a sealing the cause in itself of condemnation. In one sense, the sealing is a token or indication that all that ought to be done for an individual, a village, or a people has been done through our efforts, and they may now be fairly subjected to the Lord's judgements. Yet even among those who have been sealed up to judgement, any who will repent of their sins and come to Christ will still be forgiven.

It would not be appropriate, as you have surmised, to compare this negatie sealing power with that of sealings done between a woman and her husband and their children. This is the far more common usage of the term and is an authority given to few.

Also, you have heard it said that LDS believe that only those who receive all the ordinances can be exalted (including the ordinance of being sealed. In reality, we believe that everyone that has ever lived will have these ordinances done for them. In turn, each individual will have the opportunity to accept those ordinances or reject them. We further believe that we are judged by our knowledge of the truth and the way in which we "live" the truths we know. In other words, a Buddist as every ability to enter the Celestial Kingdom as does a LDS. We believe that God judges us by our knowledge and our actions. Hope this helps. Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What is this "law of agency" you speak of? When you say "everyone that has ever lived will have these ordinances done for them" are you speaking of baptism for the dead? bcatt 02:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Also, what exactly does the Mormon concept of heaven entail? bcatt 02:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC) And, when you describe these two kinds of negative sealings, would it be that the NT example would be a "sealing on earth", while the missionary example would be a "sealing in heaven"? bcatt 02:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The D&C says that Mormon missionaries may seal those who will not convert "on earth and in heaven"...I am asking what the difference is between an "earth sealing" and a "heaven sealing" in this context...what are the details...what do they entail?

What I wanted to know about the Mormon concept of heaven, more specifically, is where is it? And, for that matter, where is Hell?

The ordinances, they are performed on those already dead? bcatt 05:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Help Request

BoLingua,

User:Enormousdude has taken up editing Mormon articles. His edits tend to consist of duplicating information from the controversy sections and then pasting them into other sections. Either that or other facts, duplicate mistakes, or other garbage. I have pretty much reached my limit on reverting him, and he will not respond to my requests to discuss the issue. Any help you could give would be appreciated, particular with the Book of Mormon article. Thanks. --Hetar 06:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy (again)

Sorry to bother you with this, but Harmil is now attempting to delclare the vote to be invalid. Please take a look at this page and try to help resolve this conflict --T-rex 23:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)