User talk:Visorstuff

Mormon Missionary Article

I'm an RM as well (see http://www.bucketobits.com/about.html). A Mormon missionary article might be fun to create and I think I made a good start on the missionary article. I only want to create it if it makes sense (i.e. it is needed). We'd have to create links to it from the pertinent articles (there are a lot of articles about the Church in the 'pedia). If you think what is in the missionary article is sufficient, let's just leave it. If you think the topic needs a seperate article, we can remove what I have on the missionary article and use it as a starting point. Let me know... —Frecklefoot 15:26, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Viewing Wikipedia List of Articles

Sorry, I don't know how to view religious articles any easier than what you are already doing. The special pages functions were very nice. Hopefully some generous benefactor will help beef up the wiki servers so that we can get those functions back. —B 19:51, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

The List of articles about Mormonism is well done, a much needed piece and I'll contribute where I can. Lots of changes to those articles since my last edit about 3 weeks ago. B 03:43, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

I don't want to step on your toes, but I made some significant (provisional) changes on the List of articles about Mormonism. In particular, as per its title, I think this article needs to reflect Mormonism in general, and not just the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Second, I rearranged the outline a bit. The way that articles on Mormonism have been progressing, some parts of the outline have been overfilled, and some of the articles seemed out of place. I'm still not sure the way I arranged things is the best way, but I think it's a little better. Please take a look and see if the new organization makes sense. Since you did all the significant work on creating the list, I would tend to defer to your judgment. COGDEN 08:46, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Meta-article of Interest: Naming conventions (Mormon)

Given the inconsistency (including my own) and continued confusion on naming Church, Latter-day Saint and Mormon related articles and the use of similar terms in those articles, I've created the new meta-article to help normalize the convention. —B 17:14, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

Mormonism as a Christian religion page

Visor, the page as it stands says what I was driving at. The reason I deleted the "saved by grace" comment was because the wording of the sentence, as it stood, implied that the LDS believe in grace-alone salvation and the Calvinists, etc., do not: I thought that the sentence as I left it implied that the LDS believe that grace is not sufficient for salvation, which is my understanding of LDS doctrine. The sentence as currently modified says more or less what it should: I think it's still misleading in that it implies that Catholics and Mormons have identical beliefs about salvation (which they do not -- Purgatory is one obvious difference), but I can't come up with a clearer way to note that many Protestants believe in sola gratia as the principle of salvation, the LDS and the Catholics (and some Protestants) disagree, but the LDS are not in full agreement with either the Catholics or the non-Calvinist Protestants regarding the workings of salvation. I hope I gave no offense -- none was intended. Have fun editing, Jwrosenzweig 22:39, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What a page! Kind of seems out of place in an encyclopedia. Perhaps that is due more to its tone than its content. I had one question: Is the first sentence factual? Do MOST Christians not consider Mormons as Christians? Is this a verifiable assertion based on a worldwide opinion poll? Using words like MOST is a big responsibility, and I think we should stick to MANY unless we can back up our assertions. Also, I would like to try to write a better NPOV first paragraph. User:Hawstom

Totally agree - it's hard to take a poll - I'll make the change. That said, however, although the denominations accept the LDS Church as Christian, many of their adherents and clergy do not. Visorstuff 00:22, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Update: I think the page is taking a better form. I have discussed core issues and direction extensively with Mkmcconn and Wesley. It appears we are sensing a direction and purpose. I think there is a positive future for the page. See what you think. Hawstom 19:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I appreciate your frankness. It is needed in the discussions. You are both well-steeped in Wiki NPOV and unbending on what is NOT Mormonism. I seem compelled to be somewhat more accommodating in my writing, but your style is needed. Fringe stuff is good fodder for the Ed Deckers and Tanners, but doesn't describe at all the faith of millions of Mormons. Thanks. Tom 23:01, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merging Mormon "Controversies" articles to parent articles

Take a look at this discussion --> User_talk:Eloquence#Book of Mormon controversies Any thoughts? B 19:00, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

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)

---

Kudos

Amazing work on the Mormonism related articles page. I hope I am not one who has added links to pages that do not exist. I would probably not be described as a proliferationist, but as a minimalist or deletionist (if it ever came to that). As it stands, I am nothing but a novice trying to be respectful.  :-D. Hawstom 22:19, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

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 19:25, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)

---

Golden Plates Article Superfluity

I am not in a combative mood, but I probably need to understand better where all that information about the Golden Plates and the witnesses etc. should go. The Book of Mormon page and the BodM Controversies page are just so-oooooo touchy that I am hesitant to throw a bunch of "pro"-Mormon facts up there. Any thoughts? Hawstom 22:23, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There's going to be some overlap between the Golden Plates article and the "Book of Mormon Witnesses" article, but I can envision a Golden Plates page that focuses on the properties of the plates as told by witnesses (like size, contents, weight), and whether the plates are real or not, and a "witnesses" article that focuses on the witnesses, their motivations, etc., and whether or not they were trustworthy witnesses. COGDEN 04:31, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See my response on Golden Plates. Visorstuff 08:22, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Atonement

I've been much bothered for some time now that Atonement redirects to Sin. Maybe you can help me tackle this issue some time soon. Any thoughts on how to approach it? Maybe just start an "Atonement (Mormonism)" article. B 00:56, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

That's what I would do, but the people who moved the original material from Atonement to Sin might complain if Atonement is temporarily redirected to Atonement (Mormonism), so I would put a short disambiguating explanation in Atonement that links to both Sin and to Atonement (Mormonism). COGDEN 03:10, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that a disambiguating page with a little background on Atonement beliefs would be a great idea. I'm pretty overwhelmed with other projects this week (week of Jan 5), so I'll be of little help for a while. Will contribute as I can. Visorstuff 06:03, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Nomination for Adminship

I nominated you. See here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship B 15:18, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Interested to see what happens. We definately need more admins like Wesley and Mkmcconn in the religious area of that are not as extreme as some editors on the 'pedia. I think that their becoming admins (and hopefully mine) will help keep balance. -Visorstuff 19:41, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

adminship

Visorstuff, A concensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle 16:34, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks-Visorstuff 19:45, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Joseph Smith image

Would it be bad to include the painted portrait of Joseph Smith along with the photograph on the 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 cc'd these remarks and questions to the article talk. Tom 18:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You'd find the book published about five years ago about the lost appearance of Joseph Smith interesting. Blonde hair, blue eyes, thin but strong very interesting. I think worth including his both the d-type and the available shadow-graph in the legion uniform (where he looks stocky from the side because of how it was produced) would be good to include. -Visorstuff 23:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree should include both. Very curious about that description. The Smith family painting has his hair light to medium brown. Contemporaries put his weight quite high, around 200 to 220 lb--not thin. Tom 05:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A couple of items.

1. There hasn't been any response from Cookiecaper. I'm afraid your concerns about copyright on those JS images are valid. Do we need to remove them?
2. I found a very interesting web page [1] that appears to have a bunch of early renditions of JS. It is possible many of them were based on a single source, but I appreciate especially the early ones by Bathsheba Smith, S. Maudsley, and John C. Bennett. It appears they are contemporary drawings.
3. I would be interested to see a computer model done. My guess is that a combination of the daguerrotype, the Bathsheba Smith 1843, the Smith family coloring, and the "Brother" Rogers 1856, as modified for temperament as in the Benj J. Ferris 1854 (apparently based on the mocking(?) cartoon at [2] March 1844), would give the best rendition.

Tom 05:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

B & V

Hey buddy, just checking in. My editing participation seems to be cyclical. I'm curious about the "Visorstuff" nickname. Anything to do with the "Handspring Visor"? I make good use of my own Handspring Visor Platinum with a mobile phone adapter plugged into it. B 01:00, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Very perceptive. I had a website in another life that reviewed and linked together free software that was made or worked well with the Visor and Macintosh systems. It didn't last long. I was disappointed in the adoption of Springboard technology, along with all the rest of the buyers of the Visor Deluxe. Funny thing is, now I use a Sonie Clie, and, although I still have an iMac, I primarily use my work Thinkpad 740. I feel like a traitor. :-) I like the name, and have kept it.

It is nice to have you back editing. I've slowed down because of my work situation (so busy now) and not having the time to really do many edits. The other LDS editors do a good job, but don't seem to inspire me to do much more than what I'm doing. You are more my type of editor - I am comfortable with your edits. Although the edits from the more liberally-sharing LDS folks are correct in most cases, I disagree with the context and how things are shared by some of them. I guess it's good in the long-run, but it's like sanding me with 50 grit paper - makes me uncomfortable. I don't like to disagree with them, so for the most part I bite my lip and make sure things are factually correct. Since I'm moving from Mesa to Avondale (like a lot of other members in Mesa), I may have a bit more time to edit. We'll see! Good to have you back around, hope you stay longer in this cycle.... -Visorstuff 14:16, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I share your time-constraints...and sentiments especially about the liberal-LDS edits. Since COGDEN, for example, has added lots of content, I've felt it would help move the LDS-part of wikedia along to let him go gangbusters as long as he is willing rather than challenge him at every POV that I feel needs some NPOV'g....that can be done later. Why are LDS moving to Avondale?! I grew up near Baseline/Harris and went to GHS '88...lots of LDS in that Mesa-Gilbert-Chandler area...I have relatives on the Mesa/AJ side and school friends further south toward Higley. I love my Platinum since I got it a couple years ago...I hope it lasts a couple more...bought a compactflash memory adapter for it from a vendor in Mesa. B 15:45, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

I think Hawstom is a Mesa-ite as well. I love it here - although I miss the mountains of Utah Valley. I live in the Lehi area of Mesa - Country Club/Mesa and McKellips, but the area is getting worse and worse. My wife is sick of the police helicopters flying over. Avondale is a growing area. It seems the LDS population that has family ties to the east side are going farther and farther east (Queen Creek/Higley) and those who don't, or are younger, or work in Phoenix are going to Avondale/West side. Plus home prices are much less expensive in the growing West valley than other areas of the valley. We are getting more than double the square footage for about 100 bucks more a month. It is hard to pass off. We have a lot of friends who are moving out there as well. Interesting migration for sure. We'll be moving into a ward about to split (600+ members) that is about 15 minutes from our house for now. My wife was a GHS grad in '91, I bet you knew her older sister(s). We'll have to catch up on that via email on that sometime. How often do you come back into AZ? You share my exact sentiments about COGDEN's edits. He is good and knowledgeable and has made good contributions, but sometimes I wonder about why he is such a fan of controversial authors and subjects. Not that it is bad to study from time to time, but too much focus on them and you end up becoming weird or feel alienated. -Visorstuff 22:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I sent you an email through wikipedia. If you've disabled your email in your wikipedia preferences, please send me an email message with your email address through wikipedia...I've just now enabled it for that purpose. B 23:34, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Just responded to your email - you can disable email in wikipedia now. :-). -Visorstuff 00:36, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Afterlife

V, a strong spiritual interest in Afterlife has been stirring within me for several months, and I feel a desire to do some large-scale organization of Articles about Afterlife. I remember that you started Articles about Mormonism, and I wonder if you could tell me how the progression of the article went, and any hints you gleaned in building and maintaining it.

• Did it start as a user page? Then went to what? And now it is a regular article?
• How did you find all the pages to include? What an impressive list it is!

Thanks. Tom (hawstom) 20:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Great Question, I wish I knew... :-) I've created them for Scientology and am still compiling one for Catholicism. Others are planned and in the works, but are tabled now because of other projects I'm working on. "List of articles" pages are fun to create and monitor, but crazy to put together.

I actually started from my own Watchlist - I started using the search feature of Wikipedia/Google to find as many pages as I could and then looked to see what linked to those pages by the "What links here" link to the left and added them to my watch list. After your watchlist gets big enough with those type of pages, you have to copy and paste them into another application to categorize and format them (and weed out all the irrelevant stuff from your watch page...). Then I categorized each page into different sections that seemed like they fit (people, places, doctrines, etc.). This is where I actually pulled them into Excel to categorize them and then pasted into Word or Notepad and did a find and replace to get all the formatting and linking standards correct and posted.

I know I'm missing a bunch of articles in the lists I've created, but they are pretty comprehensive lists.

Incidentally, what part of Mesa do you live in? I'm getting ready to migrate to Avondale from the Lehi area of Mesa...

For some additional afterlife references you may want to check out www.earlychristianwritings.com, gnosis.org, www.pantheon.org, www.eh.sc.edu, www.themystica.org, www.ccel.org (and http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc13/htm/TOC.htm), and www.sacred-texts.com. Good stuff. -Visorstuff 00:22, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

unexplained revert

I've changed Book of Abraham again. I cannot address whatever concern of yours caused you to revert it, as you made no explanation. I believe the current version is accurate: if you do not think so, please try to leave some clue as to why? - Nunh-huh 01:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, i just hit the revert button on my admin page - I agree i shoudl ahve given an explanation.

The isssue is that the facimilies were never part of the translation process of the book of abraham. They were published prior to him starting the translation and were not part of the book of abraham. They were with the mummy, but not part of the papyrus proper used in translation. I have photos of the papryrus used in church archives, and the papyrus contained many pages, most of which were not used in the translation of the book of abraham. The facimilies were like side notes. The hypocephalus was udner the mummies head, others were part of a scroll, others loose fragements. parts of the facimilies were translated, but appear as part of the times and seasons in the Pearl of Great price, not text of the book of abraham. They were part of the papyrus, but are NOT part of the book of abraham as translated by smith. The institute manual on history of the Church, or the actual history of the church gives a detailed description on translation process. I may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but one of my campaigns here is to give the correct historical and doctrinal facts per church history. -Visorstuff 03:28, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But you are presenting your view as an undisputed viewpoint, and it is not. It has been argued that figures from Papyrus Joseph Smith IX (the "Small Sensen" text) were used to fill in portions of the hydrocephalus that are missing in Smith's reproduction of the hydrocephlus in his "Grammar" material, and I believe that most people believe the facsimiles are indeed considered an inspired portion of the Book of Abraham as published. - Nunh-huh 03:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Same issues here. Pictures were not used as basis for text. The text portions of the scrolls were used for text. The illustrations were used and published seperately. Too much evidence to the contrary of your viewpoint. -Visorstuff 23:44, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Early Joseph Smith

At Mormonism and Christianity, can you verify the factual accuracy of the introductory statement that the uneasy relationship between Mormonism and traditional Christianity began (at J.S. age 14) with folk magic practice? I am trying to see things from that POV, but I lack the sources and the background to really understand. If you can verify, can you think of a reference that can be quoted (something primary like Lucy Mack Smith, Martin Harris, or another Palmyra contemporary). Thanks for your trouble. Tom 21:20, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've done some editing of the paragraphs. See the talk page for my real "folk magic" concerns. I disagree with the research methodology and findings done by the one historian who has made claims, advanced theories and published work on the matter. -Visorstuff 23:41, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, thanks for taking this issue by the horns. Tom 20:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Visor, I need your counsel. You may have read my comments on the JS talk page regarding my discouragement of the inclusion of tidbits of information without providing context or explanation. Particularly COgden's insistence in adding the statment that the Smith family was "warned out of" a town. When context is not provided or further explanation, I find the result to be tabloid jouranlism and/or rank anti-Mormonism. Am I off base or do you think simply adding facts without explanation is appropriate? That is not meant to be a loaded question, just a relection of adamant position. Storm Rider 01:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Mormonism and Christianity

I have been discussing that article in earnest with Mkmcconn, and I really feel like we have make significant progress toward resolving his concerns. I jotted down my summary of understanding, and nobody seems to have objected to it, at the very bottom of the Talk:Mormonism and Christianity. Does that mean we should head in that direction? Tom

Also, I asked Community of Christ a bit about their own POV on classification and trinitarianism. Here is what I have received so far from their reps:

"The church has no official statement regarding the Godhead, but in essence the church is Trinitarian. The trinity is a mystery which escapes clear articulation in that it is an attempt to describe (or define) the infinite * which is beyond definitions. It might be said that the church believes in the three in ONE, not THREE in one! One God expressed or experienced in three modalities: God * the creator; God * the sustainer; God * the incarnate." Tom

Also, "We prefer to be classified as 'Restoration Movement'" This doesn't quite fit our current scheme, and doesn't account for the Campbellite type restoration movement either. I'm following up with them. Thought you might want to know. Tom 20:21, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Human (from front page)

Hey, V. Have you seen the human page? Wow! It is funny. Species status: secure ROTFL Any ideas? Tom 23:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Human

V, I put a NPOV dispute at human. I just now made an NPOV resolution change. There is quite a bit of resistance there from the guys who think NPOV means Scientific POV. You might jump over (my edits will probably not last long) and opine. Thanks beforehand. Tom 21:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looks like you've just been mostly lurking at Human. I have a short favor to ask of you. The discussion is getting strong, and I think it would help to lay our cards on the talbe so the "secularists" can see just how different is our point of view on just what is a human. But at the same time, I want to be able to get a "generic" (ha ha) religious view. In any case, would you take some time to drop by my user talk and add your personally believed factual definition of what is a human. I appreciate it. Tom - Talk 22:43, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. But even so, your personally believed factual definition of humans would be helpful to the effort, I think. Could you put it on the list? Tom - Talk 06:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LDS STUBS

Hi Visorstuff,

I just wanted to drop in to let you know that I've just finished the template Template:LDS-stub. It should make it easier to find topics on Mormonism that need to be expanded. You can use the template in your editing by entering {{LDS-stub}}. I hope you will. Pass it on if you see anybody I've missed. ;) Thanks. Cookiecaper 03:28, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond directly to this at the time. This was a much-needed tool and has helped immensely in making the editing process easier. THANK-YOU Cookiecaper!

Proposal to make a Mormonism WikiProject

I'd like to discover if there would be community support for a Mormonism WikiProject. I think it would offer several advantages to our current decentralized approach. Please comment.

See Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.#Propose we make a Mormonism WikiProject — Cool Hand Luke 18:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the WikiProject under Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. I hope the project will be useful to editors looking for work to do. To this end I've compiled a list of red links and short Latter Day Saint articles not listed as LDS stubs. Cool Hand Luke 18:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to join said project. I must admit to being in two minds: I'm not LDS myself (as you correctly surmised), and not knowledgeable on the subject either; so if I 'join', I'm unlikely to be making any major contributions as such, but rather just what I've been doing so far: questioning style, POV, consistency, reverting obvious tom-foolery, and making a general pedantic nuisance of myself. Alai 20:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

reformed Egyptian

I would appreciate your two cents at Reformed Egyptian. We are having an NPOV workshop. Tom - Talk 16:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping out. Nauvoo keeps saying "there is no such language." And I keep answering, "Of course that is true." But maybe I am off base. I am thinking of the statement that The Book of Mormon (another question :-D) is written in "the characters that are called among us the reformed Egyptian". Does this denote a language? Maybe so and maybe not. But when Nauvoo started playing the "no such language" game, I dialogued by saying, "Well, you're right, and we Mormons agree with you." But maybe I have done wrong and caused obfuscation by doing so. Maybe I should have said right off the bat, "Nauvoo, what you are really saying is that there is no such thing as ancient Book of Mormon people and writing, right? And you want to be sure the article is fairly neutral on that, right?" Maybe I owe Nauvoo an apology and an attempt to get the discussion back on track. What do you think? Tom - Talk 22:47, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think he's saying there is no such language and meaning just that - I think he is saying there is no support that it exists, aside from the mention in the book of mormon and the anthon transcript. For most people, this wouldn't be enough to base a theory on, so it cannot reach the hypothisis stage, and cannot be supported. Hence the reason for my "empirical method" comments. I think adding that back in will satisfy his objections. I see no need for an apology when you differ in your opinions, if you argued, then that is another thing, but I see no temper in your writing.

Incidentally, am i helping the process (and the Latter Day Saint Movement Project with my comments? I'd rather guide the discussions, rather than get too involved and upset in edit wars. I cannot believe how many misperceptions there are of the doctrines by the various folks that edit - it is frustrating that no matter how often the Twelve correct doctrinal misperceptions, they are still perpetuated. By offering comment, etc, I feel my expertise in policy, doctrines and history can best be served in this way, but often feel like I'm butting in or slowing things down. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 00:16, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate your input and guidance. It's a nice little article, and I'd like to see this dispute behind it. Cool Hand Luke 08:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From my point of view, your input is important because we sometimes need lots of perspectives earnestly involved to arrive at a satisfactory solution to some NPOV challenges. Thankfully, I have never personally seen an edit war in spite of struggling through some very tough challenges on talk pages. Your personal involvement is important (though of course we don't want you to get upset), and "guiding the discussion" would probably amount to less participation (input) than at least I personally had hoped you would give. These kind-spirited and sincere efforts do us good, make us better editors, and further the Wikipedia if we don't get upset at each other (or at least make up when necessary :-D). Of course, you are kind of the father of the Latter Day Saint project/area/corner, so we do need your guidance as to matters of consistent style and article organization. Tom - Talk 16:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are making my head grow! :^) - By guiding (didn't mean to sound so cocky), I do not mean I will stop editing. There is just too many Mormonism articles to properly tackle - and by "guiding" I hope to be able to correct where needed - that includes introducing new articles requested on the project page. Things have changed quite a bit in the past year - I still consider User:BoNoMoJo the father of this corner or wikipedia, although he has had some drastic cuts in editng as of late (which I hope to not repeat the dropping off/re-appearing, although I totally understand the time crunch). I think I would do better if people requested that I create specific articles. I could be as cocky as my edit above sounded and "share the knowledge," so to speak. -Visorstuff 00:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great quotes, V!

I like 'em. By the way, I added a little list of Latter Day Saint Wikipedians at my user page. Did you realize Frecklefoot has been here since 2002 and has over 8500 edits?! Wow! Tom - Talk 22:45, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Frecklefoot used to be a heavy contributor to Mormonism topics. Things died down for him in the Mormonism arena about the time Cogden joined - and he began to focus on other topics of interest to him. Some of it may have been my fault in a discussion about Outer Darkness (see Talk:Outer_Darkness for the ending of the discussion that spanned over multiple article's talk pages and got quite heated). He is a great editor, wish he were more active in the project. -Visorstuff 16:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We all say things we wish we hadn't. I'm glad I've seen him again a bit. Good feeling (wikilove) is so important. Tom - Talk 22:44, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I took a closer look at Talk:Outer_Darkness. I am very sorry Frecklefoot ended up alienated, as I can see you are. I think I can follow the explanations you were trying to present. I think they all make sense, and I think you have a correct understanding of the different terms in front of the meanings. Tom - Talk

I may have a clue where the Common Mormon Markup Language (nice invention) Outer Darkness came from. I found it and certain other modern phrases and concepts we take as givens in the Readings given by Edgar Cayce. I wonder if his Readings (or writings on his Readings) were picked up on by Latter-day Saints and certain concepts struck such a chord of recognition (In the "We accept truth from any quarter" tradition) that they were received into the lore. There are certain truths accepted in Mormonism that are rejected by nearly all other faiths that I think are fundamentally real and strike spiritual chords of belief in investigators. Some of these are our emphasis on calling God "Father", our primary emphasis on "I am a Child of God", acceptance of pre-earth life, continuum of states of glory in the afterlife, same spirit then as now (Alma 34), personal revelation, and afterlife spirit visitations or visions. Just a rambling thought. Tom - Talk

It is interesting to me how most LDS in 2004 seem to be increasingly closed to the implications of Article of Faith 9 "We believe all that God has revealed". So much for wishing all the Lord's people were prophets and young and old men of all flesh (?) seeing visions and dreaming dreams. Tom - Talk 21:40, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Community of Christ

Thanks for the news. It reminds me of what I used to hear a lot when I was a child: "Don't set your sights on the leaders; they can fall. Set your sights on Jesus Christ." I need to remember to tell my kids that a lot: Follow Jesus first. By the way, see previous section. Tom - Talk 21:19, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Spam?

Hello, I'm Visorstuff. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. 210.54.65.3 01:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The message above intrigues me. It obviously ignore your history with Wikipedia. But I am concerned about the repetition of the LDS links across several articles. Shouldn't we identify an "as-needed" application of the links so as not to be spammy? Is that perhaps what the message above is about? In your view of the Mormonism corner, which articles should have links to which sites? Tom - Talk 09:16, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'm as baffled as you are - I left the following message for User:210.54.65.3:

You left me a note on my talk page about spam, and external links. Being a Wikipedian for about two years and as an admin, I am well aware of "what Wikipedia is," but as always appreciate the reminder. However, I have no idea what you are referencing. Please cite a page or a problem in order for me to fix it. There was a case in the past week where I reverted changes to someone's removal of external links, because they were being used as a resource. But that was only a handful of external links. Please clarify. -Visorstuff 19:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will also post this here - I have no idea what this editor is referring to. Please clarify Mr./Ms. Anon.

-Time Delay Source of complaint found-

During this edit - I found the source of complaint - I belive - [of a 3 December 2004 revert to "Mormon"]. Again, in this case, I was reverting a major deletion of content that was unexplained, and frankly had no purpose in deletion. I agree that those links should be more appropriately assigned to particular pages, but am curious about what the point of contention is 210. However, if you are familiar with Wikipedia, you'll figure out the reasons for the revert, and if you saw that I made the changes, you'll also see that they were a revert and that I was not the primary source for those links.

210 - I would have appreciated a note rather than a generic message addressing your concerns. I am a bit taken back that you do not take into account either my history with Wikipedia or the context of the revert, and I am suprised that you've left an anonymouse message, so I cannot respond to you. In NO way was that advertising for the LDS Church - by reverting a strange anonymous edit without context.

On another note, I agree that there are multiple links that could be condensed and appropriately placed. Hawstom, I have some projects going on this week - can you bring up on the Project page? Feel free to referece this exchange. -Visorstuff 19:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Images

Hey, I was wondering if you ever heard from user:cookiecaper(cc) about the the copyright issue for his images mentioned here above and at cc's talk page, from what I read, I didn't see any resolution, but noted that images in question were still in place. Anyway, this is regarding this picture,

File:5Uchtdorf DF1.jpg

Dieter F. Uchtdorf

which cc asserted fair use. After seeing that, and noting a nonexistent Bednar article (soon to be stub), I went about procuring an image for Bednar by the same method, but reading rights and use info], it states:

You may not post material from this site on another web site or on a computer network without our permission.

So, perhaps you could enlighten me, and if not, I will just have to read up on fair use. User:Moogle 8 December 2004

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Anon LDS Editor

I went through all anon's contributions. Most are good, I think. I restored and removed some content (not that I'm sure it was removed by this anon) such as re: missionary pay and the temple new name disclosure to groom. Regarding temple, I think that some of the content ought to stay off. Here's why: The primary constituency of the Mormonism articles is always going to be Mormons. That's just how it is. And some of that info apparently is offensive to many Mormons. It is a useless crusade for anybody to try to keep content up that offends the Mormons. Wikilove and wikiquette say, leave it off. It's just like my desire to have the brethren in my ward choir sing Silent Night in German with a guitar for Christmas in Sacrament Meeting. It isn't against any rules (any more); it is reverent, simple, sweet, gentle, and the meaning is intuitive. But if it offends the Mormons, why do it? If they all leave, who will be left at church? Catholics? Not likely! I say, let them remove it if you can see your way to believing it would be generally offensive to your ward, quorum, or family. One other consideration. The intentional design of the endowment appears to include the concept of anticipation. I don't know that this is how it has to be, but it just seems wrong to Mormons for their kids to receive the endowment on Wikipedia. Again, I am not sure we couldn't be just as happy memorizing our endowment before actually receiving it, but that is not how we look at it today. If you can't beat them, join them. Tom - Talk 23:39, Dec 14, 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 Thanks --Trodel 06:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Talk:Polygamy

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

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

Protection request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses

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

Gold plates "question"

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

Utah WikiProject

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

Links for Newcomers

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

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

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

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

Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.

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

Bishops

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

Priesthood Discussion

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

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

Priesthood Correlation Program

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

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

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

Joseph Smith, Jr. article

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

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

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

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

As far as the specified edits, Brodie's work has been thouroughly discussed. Unless context is placed around the link, I believe it should not be included for the reasons discussed on the talk page. I would leave a note on the User's talk page, include a welcome, such as the one designed by Trodel ([3])to encourage a continuation of editing, AND to explain your recent reverts. We need more Non-LDS editors for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement to build additional credibility. Most newbie's don't read current research (Mormon, non-Mormon and Anti-Mormon alike) and when things are pointed out, makes more sense to them (even if they disagree).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whoops! Duplicated an Apostle.

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

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

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

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

On the contrary, I think this should be one that we openly invite contrarian opinions on - I think that when someone as negative as Vegasbright has been toward the articles about the LDS Church realizes that there is no REAL support for Anti-Mormon claims (as I said, even the Tanners credibly shy away on this "belief topic" - and rightfully so), they will see how little there is to add from credible researched resources. There are a number of problems with Archaeology "proving" something - even the historicity of Jesus is highly debated by secularians and Christians, but not a topic for that page. I'd guess that Vegasbright is an "exmormon," but he has never come out and said - and he definitely receives his anti-Mormon information from the usual places - not documented well and older, out-of-date research - from the money maker anti's. We don't seem to come across serious anti-Mormons who actually read primary sources or even the Tanners work firsthand on various topics to see what the "latest" research is on various topics - and then tries to be credible. The challenge for most Anti's is just not there - it is too easy to read and pass along second-hand information that may not be credible but is damaging and scandalous. There are much easier avenues to fight and tear down the struggling than engage in a scholarly discussion. Much more juicy to identify those who are stuggling and don't read the primary sources and recent research or even the scriptures and plan "random acts of exposure" to critical material. The Archaeology article is well-documented from a Mormon perspective, but since non-Mormons typically don't address "Mormon" topics and engage in the "Book of Mormon Archaeology" debate, there is little or no evidence to the contrary as well. I doubt much will come from this as there is not much to add. Plus those of us who are familiar with the critical research realize all the variables and do not add much content to the contrary as it is. The whole topic is problematic, but interesting concerns from one so negative to Mormonism. Incidentally, if you get a chance to listen to Nibley's "how to write an anti-mormon book at [4] you should - very insightful. -Visorstuff 17:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

New quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linquistics

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

Thanks for your email!

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

Sign up at the bank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Disputed tag

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

Hi

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

Linguistics and the BoM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Treatment of Anti-Mormonism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem is more complicated than more Mormons believe. Unfortunately, much of what Mormons classify as anti-Mormon is not considered anti-Mormon by the authors. When I first read Dialogue many years ago, I was amazed at how people wrote an analysis of Mormon history which contradicted the official LDS version of history, yet maintained a fondness for Mormonism, often maintaining a belief in Mormonism. Many of these people have been excommunicated since then. Boyd K. Packer said "there is no such thing as an accurate, objective history of the church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work"[5]. Packer suggests that accuracy is not a priority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a few points while I mull over your discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interested in leaving a comment for the Wikipedia Signpost?

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

God was once a man?

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

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

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

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

The gospel principles manual states (Gospel Principles, Unit Ten: Life After Death, 47: Exaltation, 301 [6]):

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

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

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

2. They will become gods.

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

4. They will receive a fulness of joy.

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

What all that means, we are left to speculate, but we have some ideas [7]. We are getting into some pretty deep doctrine that we don't know much about. What does it mean to become a god? We know we can't comprehend it - the blessings of exaltation are great - they are profound, they are wonderful. We have some ideas - some glimpses, but they are not spelled out in great detail. Christ qualified and became a god prior to mortality - so there are different ways to become a god than life experience and mortality on this earth. He did not need baptism, but did it as an example. The rest of us to become a god, baptism is required.

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

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

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

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

Opposition, Criticism, or Anti-

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

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

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

Polygamy and apologies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus

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

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

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

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

Further explanation...

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

My apologies of not explaining. First, you removed Orson Scott Card as a controversial Mormon. He is quite controversial within Mormonism. He is accused of making homophobic statements by non-Mormons, he is accused of being to "liberal" in his interpretations of Mormon teachings by many Mormons. A good example is his statements that the church doesn't discourage watching "R-rated movies" [8], the use of sex and strong language in his fictional works and so forth. I'm not judging the merit of his statements or his work, but his is considered controversial both within and without of the Church. And I haven't even begun to address his historical research and academic-type publications. He is bright and very smart, but is as controversial (if not more so) than Sheri Dew, and others who are controversial - not anti, but controversial both within and without the church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Welcome

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

Hope you stay for a while.

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

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

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

Tom

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

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

Mormonism and Judaism

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

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

Help at Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.

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

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

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

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

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

User 68.46.222.74

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

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

Barnstar

This long overdue Barnstar is awarded to Visorstuff for, well, a ton of reasons.

Like 'em or not, you should've received one of these a long time ago. Since monitoring the LDS Wikiproject several months ago, I've admired and appreciated your tireless work ethic in maintaining and improving articles, your welcoming attitude towards newcomers and willingness to explain how WP works to them, your excellent contributions and effort to remain NPOV, your quickness to notice and neutralize vandalism, and your leadership to others at WP, whether they've been here for years or days. And while my name may be tagged to this edit, I feel that I speak for a number of others at WP and the LDS project that would say the same. Thanks for what you do. Deadsalmon 07:04, 9 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 15:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

es:WP:SUD (LDS)

Spanish is going to be a challenge. I obviously can't do much writing myself as a non-native, much less solo, though I have begun porting a few articles. What I am mainly trying to do is catch every anon who happens by and try to lasso him as a es:WP:SUD participant. It will take at least a year, I am sure, before anything at all begins to happen. But I did get my first recruit the other day. I do regret a CofC guy appears to have got away this week though. The anons who show up at the es articles pretty much just bear their testimonies on talk page and split, which I guess is probably what initially happened a lot here. Come to think of it, the fact that we don't get a lot of testimonies on our talk pages anymore is a good indicator that our articles are at least fair to the LDS Church traditional perspective. And that is good. I hope someday to say the same about es:WP:SUD.

ARMA dispute

Hey, there's currently a dispute over at the ARMA article that I'm not sure what to do about. About a third of the article is a criticism section which seems to be heavily POV and original research. I feel it doesn't belong in the article. No other martial arts organisation has a criticism section at all (I checked every single article in the category), and even most religions don't have a criticism section so large, particularly when compared to the rest of the article. User:209.233.102.4 has violated the Three Revert Rule to keep the section in there (and he also tried deleting my comments on the talk page), while I have been working to make the rest of the article more NPOV (he correctly pointed out that the tone of the article is inappropriate for Wikipedia).

I've never really been in a dispute before like this, and I just sort of stumbled upon it. I know you're an admin, and I was wondering if you could either help out there or tell me what the best thing to do is. The Jade Knight 01:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jade Knight, I'm actually taking off right now, but will try to monitor later. Please report the 3RR at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and they will make sure it is taken care of in a timely manner.

Congratulations on your first dispute. :^) j/k Seriously, though, remind the anon on his user page the seriousness of registering and becoming a real wikipedian in order to be taken seriously. I find that kindness will help in disputes like this. Also, let them know that they have violated rules and could be banned for an edit war. Good luck - I'll check in as soon as I can. -Visorstuff 12:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows massacre

Thank you for your recent efforts on the talk page. Although I haven't had much Wiki time, I have been keeping an eye on the "action" on the article. Lots of reverts. 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 09:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will review and provide comments. I suspected that this article would turn into a dispute a few days ago, and have therefore stayed out of the dispute in order to monitor as an admin. Hope issues get resolved. -Visorstuff 12:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

coincidence theory

Hi, V. Your reference to coincidence theory doesn't fit with the explanation given in the article linked. You may want to check the term. It seems completely diametrical to me. Tom Haws 22:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Baby

Congratulations on the birth of your baby boy! I have been checking out a lot of articles on mormonism and found that you are a common denominator in a lot of them, especially with keeping them neutral. Good job Epachamo 07:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Enoch legend

I'd like to see a better source for this than a Geocities reference. From what I can gather from google, it's a theory put forth by Knight and Lomas in The Second Messiah, and unbfortunately, it's more about alternative history than anything else. Every other Enoch page on Google seems to have been suspended. However, what does exist is the fact that there is supposedly a Scottish Rite degree dealing with this, which is outside the scope of the article, as Smith was never AASR and wouldn't have known about it. MSJapan 15:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to working with you on this. First a small side note: as you undoubtedly know, masonic legends exist both in and out of the current modern Freemasonry movement. I won't go into all the details on where else they can be found (especially in Templar lore, descriptions of Washington's apron, Sphinx lore, etc., but those are getting off topic). I have provided three seperate references online to Enoch legends in my references for quick reference - all three work as of Feb 13. One is a paper from Reed Durham on similarities to Mormonism and Masonry - which is insightful and of course pre-dates Lomas and Knights work. The second is the Geocities reference, and a third is from an academic setting. Here are a couple other sites dealing with similar legends: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] and even the unflattering and not-as-reliable [15].

If you'd really, really like, I can track down a number of books I have that reference these. Depending on the tradition, the lodge, etc. the legends are interconnected or disconnected greatly. The interpretation of these texts differ greatly and are emphasized differently in different settings. For Example, Enoch is only mentioned in the first degree lecture used by nearly all lodges, but lectures and legends are very different.

Two questions: Have you read "Freemasonry in Context?" Or "The Craft, A History of English Freemasonry And are you a Freemason?" Or the Enoch entry in "Royal Masonic Cyclopaedia?" - Also, please give more details on the lodge, tradition, degree and status. I am a bit puzzled that you are the first to dispute such a legend in the two-three years that the info has been on the Wikipedia in some form or another and should have been explained to you (Even though I'm puzzled, I also know that not all wikipedia info is correct, but its interesting that its been uncontested for this long). Because of that, I'm trying to understand where you are coming from on this, as you should know the enoch legend, but perhaps not this interpretation of it? To be honest, your dispute is all a bit confusing to me, so I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. Hopefully we can get down to the bottom of your concern and address answer your questions. Hopefully our work will make the said pages more sound and reliable. -Visorstuff 17:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I will certainly read the pages you have posted. I don't own the other works you mentioned, but i do know that Enoch does not appear in the first degree lecture in all regular jurisdictions. from the nature of the cites you give, I would be inclined to believe Enoch appears only in UK Emulation ritual, and not the Duncan or Webb iterations (I believe that ours is Webb, but I would need to check). In our first degree lecture, for example, Enoch is not mentioned. Therefore, there is at the very least a historical/modern dichotomy regarding ritual content, and it is also possible that Enoch appears in Scottish or York Rite, which raises the issue of if it's really Freemasonry, in that while everyone who is a Mason needs to go through the three degrees, everything else is optional (at least in the US). I'll have more to say once I get the background from those pages. MSJapan 18:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As I thought, they occur either in the Scottish tradition (unclear) or in the York and/or Scottish Rites (as per the GLNB link), which are not the same as Craft Freemasonry. Therein lies my objection, as noted above. The assumption is made by the article that every Mason knows this legend and considers it important to Freemasonry, and that is not the case. MSJapan 18:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It is still freemason legend, but we should clarify that not all rites/schools, etc. use all of Masonic legends. Do you discuss how the lodge faces in your lectures?

Let me know what you think about editing in this direction to clarify that not all study all of masonic legends. -Visorstuff 18:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a system update took place. I've updated Hiram Abif to read that the legend is not used contemporarily in all masonic rituals. As I've studied the history or Masonry as it relates to other things, I believe this is an accurate point of view. Many things have changed over time. Let me know what you think. -Visorstuff 22:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The blank was unintentional, and I think it was because of system issues. As long as the Enoch legend is put in a historical context, it's certainly legitimate. I'm still not sure that there's any relation whatsoever (I personally think they appear in unrelated contexts), but I would have to ask around to get more info.

The definition of "Masonic ritual" is also tricky. It usually refers to Blue Lodge ritual, and not ritual performed by any other appendant or related bodies. Therefore, generalizing about Masonry is a hard position to support; jurisdictions are independent entities, and what they do is up to them. The only similarities occur when the source is the same (Preston-Webb or Duncan for example.

Furthermore, it is important to consider the quality of research. Mackey, Pike, and others (such as Knight and Lomas) were very much concerned with creating a Masonic history that goes further back than objective historical proof shows, and I'm very sure they created connections that never really existed for purposes of "proving" a point. Therefore, to me, the status of The Hiram Key as nonfiction is debatable - the so-called "Masonic Testament" Knight and Lomas created is cobbled together from a lot of obscure and sometimes Lodge-specific ritual, so its application to Masonry in general is questionable. Neither Knight nor Lomas are trained historians, so their ability to judge critically vs. writing to make a point is debatable. Most Masons I know consider them to be a fun read, but not serious research. For example, in Hiram Key, the main point is that Freemasnory goes back to prehistoric Venus-worshipping cults, and while they use recent sources, the validity of the sources is unclear - i.e., they may not be accurate. There is certainly a lot more to be done on the topic, though. MSJapan 04:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem - after I relized the servers were having issues, I realized it was Wikipedia's blanking. Not a big deal. I appreciate your patience with my rants. :^)

How does the Hiram Abif article read now - I know it's not perfect, but it is moving in the right direction? I actually, from my own research, believe that Masonry does date back farther than the Modern Freemason movement. As I alluded to earlier, you can find remenants of the rituals in many older belief systems - from ancient egypt, to early christianity, to the middle ages, to Jewish legends. I disagree that it originated with Venus-worshipping cults, and have found little to support that. Just becuase rituals and such are similar, does not mean that is where the originated. It only means that it was seen as significant to groups of people who borrowed and used it in other settings. I'm undecided on your assessment of Knight and Lomas, but due to the lack of universally compiled work on Freemasonry, it is difficult to determine. You've definitely given a good argument, and I'll be more careful in my reading of them. -Visorstuff 16:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Better, although the connection between Enoch and Hiram should be at the head of section, not the very end, otherwise the purpose of the section is unclear (you've got Hiram, and all of a sudden Enoch pops up for no reason until you read the end). I fixed that, and also completely removed "nonfiction", as "revisionist historian" covers it. I don't like the K&L sentence structure, though, as I've had to add two qualifying commas to make the sentence break properly for reading. I'll fix it later if I get an idea. MSJapan 18:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I did some followup on the Cephas page, and apart from a reference to a gold plate and the Temple of Enoch in the 13th (as quoted in the paper), the other references are no longer correct (as far as the NMJ is concerned). MSJapan 01:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Question about Mormon Godhead

Is there a reason why you reverted the note that Mormonism denies monotheism on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article? Thanks. JordanBarrett 21:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Because it is not accurate. It may seem so at face value, but it is not. Even, if you consider the concept of the trinity polytheistic, it is not accurate. The doctrine is that Latter-day Saints worship God and pray to the Eternal Father in the name of Jesus Christ.

How this doctrine is interpretated is subject to one's interpretation of other doctrines and culture.

Because of this, although Latter-day Saints generally believe that The Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are three distinct individuals and all are God (and Gods), they are not considered polytheistic (which is the belief and worship in multiple gods [16]) because of the doctrine stated above. The Supreme creator, God the Father is worshipped. If Mormonism is condisered polytheistic in this strain, then the rest of Christianity is moreso, as Latter-day Saints worship the father, not three Gods.

Second, the LDS strain of Mormonism is much more monotheistic than most critics allude to. Although allowing for the existence of other gods (in the bible, the terminology gods is sometimes translated angels - so there is some scholarly dispute on this point as to what it means within Mormonism), Latter-day Saints worship one Eternal God. The rest is speculation as to whether or not there are gods above or below the Father. We worship God the Father in the name of Christ.

Lastly, Some feel that Mormons are polytheistic because Latter-day Saints believe they can become 'gods' (see undefined definition above) and 'like' God (see theosis or deification). This does not neccessarily mean that they can become omnipotent creators of technicolor worlds with purple dinosaurs. It does mean that they will be co-inheritors of exaltation - something our mortal minds do not comprehend. President Hinckley was criticised when he told Mike Wallace that he understands the philosophy behind us becoming creator-gods, but that he doesn't think that the church teaches it. To me, that was funny, because those who realize that the doctrine is much more complex than how most culturally believe it, accepted his explanation, while others thought that is strange that President Hinckley would deny that. It was simply a clarification of doctrine.

To sum, most Mormons would consider themselves Monotheistic.

Questions for you: What is your relationship to Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement? How did you come up with this summation of Mormon belief? -Visorstuff 23:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I appreciate your reply. You were concise and clear in your presentation of the Mormon view of the Godhead and yet gave a full representation as well. On another note, my relationship can be described in that I am not LDS - I am an Evangelical Christian. My summation of the Mormon view of the Godhead has come through a personal study of their Scriptures, literature, and theological teachings. My issue with Mormonism comes in their definition of "God" and "Monotheism". A biblical view of monotheism appears to add more than just "You shall have no other gods before me" (Ex 20:3) as if the issue is simply how many we are worshipping. It seems to also bring with it an understanding that there exists no other being similar to the one God. There exists, numerically, only one God and no more than one. If my definition of monotheism is correct, then Mormons are not monotheistic despite the fact that they only worship God the Father.

Futhermore, LDS, to keep from contradicting the idea that they are in fact not polytheistic must redefine what "God" means. For if both the Father and Jesus are God, why are both not worshipped? Does not God (singularly) deserve worship? Why only the Father? If Jesus is God but is not worshipped then LDS must redefine "God" as more of an attribute (or even property). That is, one can hold the attribute of deity, and this, in my mind, must be what the Jesus in Mormon thought does - he holds the property or attribute of divinity but must remain unlike God the Father. He becomes a lesser god than Heavenly Father, and if in turn he is said to be as fully God as God the Father then we again have the issue of why he does not receive worship. That's the stuff that has gone through my head as I have studied LDS literature. If monotheism is reduced to simply "the worship of one God", then (1) either Jesus is a lesser god (Arianism), or (2) Jesus is as fully God as God the Father but for some reason (which I am interested in hearing) does not receive worship. It also gets fun when we add the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) into the mix. What are your thoughts? JordanBarrett 23:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I imagine this is the issue that other (and more truly) monotheistic religions such as Deism, Zorastrianism, Sikhism, Islam, Bahá'í, Taoism, Hinduism, have with Trinitarian Christianity (well, maybe less so with Hinduism). You may want to read each of their concepts of monotheism at Monotheism. It is a very interesting read. As an avid student of world religions, American Evangelical Protestantism is very healthy worldwide (and an important cultural/ideological U.S. export), but its belief set is relatively new to the Christian scene. Your definition and doctrine of monotheism is defined by American Evangelical Protestantism, which would also call Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox polytheistic because of what is labeled by Evangelicals 'Mary-worship.'

You stated 'My issue with Mormonism comes in their definition of 'God' and 'Monotheism. Let's not use Mormon definition or Evangelical Christian definitions. We both know the bible is interpreted differently by different groups (and I would love to hear more of a exposition on the 'biblical view of monotheism' that adds more to the first of the ten commandments: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me' or to the words of Christ: 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind').

Using your definition, the only true 'monotheistic' Christian sect I know existing today in practice is the Jehovah's Witnesses. Certainly a belief in a tri-theistic god is polytheism. However, for now, let's use the Wikipedia definition, as this is Wikipedia. Monotheism is 'is the belief in the one, single, universal, all-encompassing God.' Polytheism is 'belief in, or worship of, multiple gods or divinities.'

Mormons and Evangelicals both hold a belief in 'the one, single, universal, all-encompassing God.' Mormons allow for other deities, but do not concern themselves with them. Outside of the Godhead, gods are speculatory. Evangelicals also allow for other deities. However, for the most part they come in the form of idols and possession worship. Evangelical's definitions of 'angels,' which by definition are lesser gods, from a non-christian perspective would be seen as worship in and belief of other gods.

In addition, Mormonism does not allow for equality of opposition between Christ and Satan, as do some forms of American Protestantism – meaning that some Protestant sects believe that Satan as pure evil, is opposite to Christ, which is pure goodness, righteousness and light. In Mormonism, Michael (the archangel) and Satan are the opposites (see Jude 1:9 and Revelations 12:7), something that has been lost in most American Protestantism sects.

The Mormon concept is well-explained by Paul in 1 Corinthains 8:4-6:

We know that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that [there is] none other God but one.

For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

We are only concerned with worship of God. There may be other things that are gods, or other beings that are gods, or other things - toys, possessions and even angels - that can be worshipped, Mormons worship God.

Evangelicals use the word 'Trinity.' Mormons do not. They use the term 'Godhead' or God. The Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates state 'And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God.' This is not to say 'one person.'

The Mormon belief is 'The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.' (D&C 130:22).

In any case, Mormonism believes that the Father and the Son both have bodies of flesh and bone (not flesh and blood), and the Holy Ghost is a spirit – and they are distinct. Trinitariansim believes that the Son has a body of flesh and bones, but that the Father and Son are spirits – and they are not distinct. The only difference is that Mormonism believes in the distinctness of the persons within the Godhead.

Now, you raised some good questions in your reading of LDS Literature. You are obviously more thought-provoked than most. I'm impressed with your insight. What you are reading and wondering about is similar to the arguments on the matter within Traditional Christianity – or between denominations over the past 2000 years. What is the interpretation of the Niceane creed. In Mormonism, it is what is the interpretation of the Standard works on the matter. Here is a run down on the main schools of thought:

Some Mormons speculate that God is a priesthood office or a title. Like 'Father McKenzie' from the Beatles song 'Eleanor Rigby,' in this view, God would be a title that anyone can attain to based on righteousness and eternal progression. After all a child becomes like his Father –'I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High (Psa 82:6). 'Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device' (Acts 17:29). However, this view is speculatory.

Some Mormons believe that by 'divine investiture,' Christ is worshiped the same as the Father as worshipping Christ is worship in the Father. (similar to the concept you referred to as Arianism above). Some believe that the Father alone is worshipped and/or that Christ is merely the conduit to worship him. And Jehovah is the one who gave the law that he was to be worshipped, and Mormons believe that Jehovah is Jesus, not the Father (Elohim).

Some believe that Christ is now an exalted being, and has progressed to become a 'god' yet we still worship the Father. Some of this group believes that Christ has always been a god but also experienced mortality.

Some believe that Christ, as their savior is their God. By worshipping and giving honor to him, they are worshipping and giving honor to the Father. Or that because Christ and the Father (and the Holy Spirit) are God, and that is who we worship, but that we pray to the Father in the name of the Son.

Some combine parts of all of the above. I personally do.

And I haven't even addressed the concept of the Holy Ghost and/or Holy Spirit (which is as complex as it is in traditional Christianity).

You see, this is much more complex than an easy perusal. Mormonism is nearly 14 million and beliefs do differ within Mormonism. Most Mormons go by the stated doctrinal statements and don't concern themselves with the speculative details. Others dig into the doctrine and try to figure it out, which is likely what you've read. Look past their speculation and into the points they are trying to make by it, and then you'll understand the culture of Mormonism, but I wouldn't go to them to understand the doctrines of Mormonism.

I modified the statement above. I was hasty to type it, and did so improperly. Hope this helps, and I am enjoying this dialogue. I look forward to your response. -Visorstuff 01:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I haven't bailed on ya. Things have been quite busy since your reply, and I should be able to reply as well in the next few days. Thanks for your patience. JordanBarrett 05:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am back. I appreciated your thoughts above, but I do have some questions, as well as some concerns. First, I would appreciate if you could expand on why you found my definition of monotheism to only encompass JWs. My hunch is that I either wasn't clear or that you may misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity. I'm confused as to how you drew that conclusion.

At any rate, if we use Wikipedia's definition of polytheism, then I still don't see how this helps the LDS view of the Godhead. It states, "belief in... multiple gods or divinities." If Mormonism is correct, and if Jesus is a God and Heavenly Father is another God, then we have two divinities (or "multiple gods"). Futhermore, you said that "Mormons allow for other deities." Does this not imply a polytheistic belief despite who you worship? Again, the definition of monotheism does not appear to be limited to "how many gods do you worship", but also "how many gods do you believe exists?". Maybe I am being oversimplistic.

I'm curious why you believe that Evangelicals also allow for other deities? Evangelicalism is what it is because of a strong belief in Trinitarian theology which explicitly denies the existence of any other deity. Perhaps you've read those who say this and want to fall under the umbrella of Evangelicalism? I'm interested where this came from. Lastly, Angelology in Evangelical theology does not imply other deities. They are creatures, that is, they are created while God is not and this - especially in Evangelical theology, although not in LDS theology - adds a huge chasm between God and man. Another time, though. :)

I have seen LDS often cite 1 Cor 8:4-6. Personally, I think LDS put their own spin on what Paul meant. The "to us" factor does not imply as some LDS want it to that other deities existed (or exist) although Paul says that for Christians they don't. He explicitly states, "There is non other God but one." In other words, no other God exists. The idea of "gods many, and lords many" he says "though there be that are called gods" in the sense that they are simply called gods but that is it. Turning to Galatians 4:8 Paul explains that they were enslaved to those who "by nature" were not gods. This is important, for I find that his thought continues in 1 Cor 8 in that "by nature" these so-called gods are nothing for for us - for Christians - for what's true - there is no God but one.

I appreciate the other comments you made, especially admitting that not all LDS agree on who to worship. I think it's good when people from any faith can admit that all do not agree as is evident in my own faith. I do apologize for not answering all of your comments. I'm afraid this would get too long and that too many rabbit trails would be produced. Are you up for staying on the topic of the Godhead and monotheism? I think there is still a lot to be discussed and dealt with and I'm interested in going further with that.

A last question would be this: Being that Jesus is Jehovah, the God of the OT, why do LDS not worship him anymore? Going with this theological conviction, Jesus was clearly worshipped in the OT by Israel. Maybe this is what Mormonism's divine investiture is all about, but I think this brings up problems. In the NT, Heavenly Father is then worshipped and Jesus is not. Are you familiar with Gnosticism? or even Marcionism? I'm not saying this is exactly like one of those two (or even both). Yet, Mormonism's distinction between the God of the OT and the God of the NT (again, in my mind, two Gods, both were worshipped = polytheism) reeks of Gnostic belief. Although Marcion rejected the God of the OT (which LDS don't), he still made a clear distinction between the two whereas early Christianity affirmed that the God presented in the OT and NT are the same God, nothing different. Just thinking out loud here. I look forward to your thoughts. JordanBarrett 20:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

One last question - could you explain to me your concept of the Trinity, even if you believe it's contradictory? If so, why? If you believe it's false, why? Perhaps this will have to wait for a later time, but I want to know what it is I'm dealing with regarding your thought on the Trinity. That can make a big difference in my replies. Thanks. JordanBarrett 20:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies in the tardiness of response. I've been traveling quite a bit over the past several weeks, and that combined with a new child... well you get the idea.

Let me take your thought one-by-one.

1 - Jehovah Witnesses as only monotheists within Christianity. By your definition, that Monotheism is defined by a belief in "one God" they are. Trinitarianism is dualistic in essense. One God embodied in three (or two, depending on sect belief) forms, is the same as a being with three different manifestations, and three forms, and therefore is, like buddhism, multiple representations of a force or being that is supernatural and is therefore polytheistic in nature, according to that definition. JWs (I apologize in advance for the abbreviation to those who may be offended) believe that there is one being, God, and that Christ is the Son of God, but not a God. Therefore according to their theology, they are monothestic. Once you have God manifesting himself to Christ, you have two beings, even if they eminate from the same force and again is polytheistic. I hope this makes sense. Therefore, by Wikipedia's standards, Christianity, aside from JWs are polytheistic: as Christianity believes in "multiple gods or divinities" or at least multiple manifestations of divinity acting in concert, but seperately. Christians all use the word "they" implying multiple, regardless of "dogma," or Niceanic "doctrine" in application they are multiple.

2- Second you wrote: "If Mormonism is correct, and if Jesus is a God and Heavenly Father is another God, then we have two divinities (or "multiple gods")." To be completely honest. Probably so. But it is not that different than what was explained above in regard to traditional christianity. Mormons believe they have seperate bodies. You believe they have seperate manifestations. Both emply different entities.

3-Polytheism refers directly to worship of other beings than one god. That is why Hinduism and others are considered monotheistic religions, as stated above. Many biblical scholars believe that the original hebrew/abrahamic religion was polytheistic - the religion that we both descend from. The beauty in this is that monotheism came to be, according to legend, when Abraham made a pact to only worship one god - Jehovah - rather than any others or idols. That seems very basic, but the bible quotes God as saying that we shouldn't have any other gods before Jehovah (not that there are no others). I could try to wax eloquent about the deuteronomists and King Josiah's reforms, but I'll abstain.

4-You mention that angels are created by god and/or are subordinate to God. Would you consider Greek mythologoy monotheistic then? Most polytheistic religions believe in a main or father god who created or fathered other gods, as is the case with Zeus. Angels often equate to gods in mormon theology, just their ministration is different. Any Mormon who believes they can become a "god" still believes that he will be subordinate to the Father and Christ, and was created by them. Apparently evangelical's angelogy and Mormon's "gods" can be equated.

Hopefully I answered the rest of the questions you had in the body of this answer. This has been a good discussion. I hope it continues. -Visorstuff 23:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Mormon missionaries merge

Visorstuff, just wanted to let you know that I have proposed merging Mormon missionary with Mormon missionaries. I noticed you have contributed to these pages in the past, so please stop by one of the article's talk pages and leave your input on the merge. Thanks! --Hetar 07:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've responded with my opninion at Talk:Mormon missionaries -Visorstuff 23:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Rootpage - help please with straw poll

You asked how you could help get Root page through. We're struggling a bit and keen to finalise the idea and get it in place. You can help by giving your support in the straw poll at Talk:Root page and by giving your opinions on whether we allow multiple levels and whether we put a 'backlink' at the top of a page (see recent objections there). --Lindosland 01:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Talk: Joseph Smith, Jr. (Sock puppetry accusations)

I really have little hope that any discussion with you will produce any of the results that it should. This is indicated right in the message that I am now replying to:

• (bcatt): You know, you aren't doing a very good job as an admin if you hold double standards based on what religion an editor is (something I've seen frm you in other issues on this article as well)
• (visorstuff): This is a personal attack directed towards me...It is frankly immature to repay my offered help in this way (no offense meant, just stating the facts)

Hmmm...so, if I make a valid point that you are engaging in questionable practices due to your bias (which is especially disruptive due to your "authority" on wikipedia, that is a personal attack...but if you call me immature in an attempt to "shoot the messenger", that is not a personal attack? Hmm, I wonder where I get the impression that you have double standards? Maybe because you put your double standards on clear display in response to my pointing them out?

Dispute it if you want, I am prepared to go through the history and show how you let Storm Rider get away with repeated nasty ad hominem attacks and biting of newcomers, and cookiecapers incivilities, and ignored Trodel's disruptive behaviour, then, instead of properly reprimanding them, you made excuses for them, and reprimanded me for not bending myself to suit them...and on top of that, you threatened that you had "noted my behaviour" and implied that you had informed other admins that I was "behaving badly" (though I would like to know why these other admins were not informed of storm Rider's behaviour which warranted a block, since - surprise, surprise! - he never once stopped his vicious attacks and has been extremely and intentionally disruptive in an attempt to derail discussion and therefore prevent NPOV edits to the article) as though I was doing something inappropriate by trying to introduce the world outside of Mormonism into the article. And just so you know, Mormon editors may consider you "helpful", but you in no way "helped" me, so don't congratulate yourself for it. bcatt 04:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am saddened to read that you do not want, or have thought, that I have been trying to help. I was hoping that you would assume good faith. In any case, I take this accusation very seriously as my wikipedia duties have been directed in the area you suggest I am violating. Therefore, I am asking other Non-mormon admins to step in. I will be asking those who have been with Wikipedia for a long time for help - those who are trusted in the community - and who have built solid reputations for helping settle disputes and for staying neutral. You'll likely notice them over the next few days.

Please note, I hold nothing against you, nor was my intent to "reprimand" you or "defend" mormon editors. I've made plenty of Mormon editors unhappy with me, as I've sought to point them away from cultural doctrines that are promulgated taht are not supported by LDS scripture or church teachings - some of which you have re-introduced into the article, and are under dispute currently.

Your reaction to my offering of help and to track down a sockpuppet suprised me. An offer to help. That is all it was, and I did find your response impatient, temper-filled and immature. I'm sure that is not who you are as a person, but that the situation is bringing out that side of your personality. Please accept the comments with the intent of which they are meant - to help you not to over-react as others do. Just because I don't suggest the same (which I have done via email to other editors) publicly to others does not mean I do not hold them up to the same standards. -Visorstuff 22:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Tiresome

A member of your faction is trolling again. Are you going to do anything about it this time? Or are you going to make excuses, and in effect encourage them to continue violating wikipedia policy? Maybe you are going to employ double standards by failing to address the immaturity involved in these kinds of behaviours, even though you were quick to label me as immature for pointing out that you do not address the disruptive behaviours of your faction? bcatt 15:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Now more members of your faction are joining in with a mobbing of verbal violence in order to persecute me (to use the terminology they like to use in regards to those who oppose(d) Smith)...are you going to do anything about it? This is a gross violation of wikipedia policy. bcatt 23:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As you see my offer for help as mobbing, etc. as I stated above, I am asking trusted (by all) Wikipedians to help. This whole situation is mind-boggling to me, as the page was relatively stable until recently, and now there are many glaring errors and POV from both sides. In this case, the dialogues have not made this page better (as all involved know) but much, much worse. Happy editing, and I will still monitor the article, but as a whole am recusing myself from it for a time due to your accusation of my misuse of my administrative powers. If others do not think I've misused those powers I think I'll be very upset that i've recused myself for the time being, and will not likely not ever recuse myself again. -Visorstuff 22:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Smith

I took a quick look at the Joseph Smith talk page and added a couple comments there. I'm not going to take the time to read up on the whole history right now, but just reading the last couple days gave me a feel for what's happening. I'll try to stay involved for at least a few days and see how things shape up. Thanks for calling my attention to it; I only hope I can help. Wesley 17:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you can help. Bringing a non-Mormon admin can only help - especially one who is respected across wikipedia as you are (and who has been around since this all began). I really think that the page has derailed, and that the content is getting worse as a result of the interactions. As you know, for the past year, I monitor LDS pages mostly to help clear up confusion, fix doctrinal mistakes (both Mormon and non-Mormon) and try to help guide discussions. It is unfortunate that in this case, I've been labeled as a contributor to the problems when we've worked so hard to build a group of editors that will work toward NPOV and inclusion. I feel that this interaction has led to the few non-LDS editors we've recurited to give up on the LDSM project (WP:LDS), just as we had good collaboration going. Perhaps I shouldn't have pushed so hard to get non-LDS to edit in the project, perhaps it is just an unfortunate series of events, and perhaps they will return. In any case, this is a defining moment in the WP:LDS and to be honest, I can't believe this small dispute on a relatively stable page until a few months ago has turned into this.

Also, as to the accusation of my misuse of admin powers, I would appreciate your thoughts on that as well. As I stated earlier, I take this suggestion seriously. Thanks again. -Visorstuff 22:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look through the recent part of this talk page, and haven't managed to find any serious accusations. I did see where bcatt thought you weren't doing enough to "rein in" or scold fellow LDS members and were asking her to do all the accomodating. In my mind, that isn't a use of admin powers, good or bad, because anyone can suggest that people take a wikiholiday, or that this or that person compromise more. Such suggestions from and admin may or may not carry more weight than when coming from others. In my experience, they often don't carry extra weight, but that might be partly because I often work with other admins so that's not a big differentiator. Abuse of admin powers would (just in my opinion) include things like blocking a user because you disliked the user and/or their POV, protecting or unprotecting a page as it suited your side of a debate, that sort of thing. And of course violating the 3RR or other Wikipedia policies would be a violation of wikipedia policy and should be taken seriously, perhaps all the more so if the violation is by an admin, but would not be an abuse of admin privileges; that sort of thing is an abuse of general user privileges, since any editor can violate the 3RR. So those are my off the cuff thoughts on that subject. Hope you find it helpful. Wesley 12:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Tied up

Visorstuff, I'm so grateful that you thought of me as a potentially helpful mediator in your conflict; but I've not had time recently to do anything as a Wikipedian. I continue to think that the project is worthwhile, and a serious social experiment, but I have set limits on myself that I dare not go past for the present, lest I neglect issues that are more pressing. I sincerely hope that you'll find the help that you are looking for. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

JS mediation, etc

Don't get me wrong, I don't think mediation would be a bad idea, by any means, I'm just concerned that the more you try to press her with a limited range of options, the more she'll object. I did also try to reassure her as to the nature of mediation. I see no reason why you shouldn't edit the article. If I were you, I'd try to avoid removing anything significant for the time being; in preference, try to NPOVify it, add a {{fact}} template, or add a discrete item on the talk page asking for a reference, or describing why it's problematic as it stands, and see if that gets better results. Alai 18:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.

I think you're missing a key parameter there... (Number 2, that is.) Alai 19:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing - I'll add in and re-do. I really don't have time for this today, but needs to be done. -Visorstuff 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)