Hi Tom, I'm glad I could help. Welcome to Wikipedia!
Here are some useful links for you;
Angela 22:46, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- 1 moved your comments
- 2 Book of Mormon controversies
- 3 Missing Links
- 4 Sandy
- 5 Purported cults.
- 6 beneficial
- 7 Thanks
- 8 Template:Cults
- 9 Talk:Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
- 10 LDS miscellaneous topics
- 11 Geneology in China
- 12 K.M. and a warning
- 13 Joseph Smith article
- 14 Jesus
- 15 Mormonism and Christianity
- 16 User Page
- 17 Compromise in intro
- 18 Thanks!
- 19 from wrp103
moved your comments
Book of Mormon controversies
Sorry, you won't get sensible replies out of me at 4 in the morning. :) I've had a look at the discussions now but I got slightly confused, particularly as they are spread out all over the place, and on Eloquence's talk page he says he will make a proposal on the talk page, but I can't actually find it. Does it exist yet? If not, it may be best to wait to see what it is before disputing it.
Have you read the Mother Teresa talk page? I think that may give you some insight to where he is coming from regarding the moving of controversial stuff to separate pages. I can see his point, but I'm not yet convinced that it applies in the same way to Mormon controversies page as it did to MT.
I'm wondering if part of the issue is just the title. Could it be changed to reflect a particular topic it is discussing, rather than needing the word controversy in it? This might help Eloquence see it isn't an NPOV issue, and/ or stop it being an NPOV issue. Angela. 20:52, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your note re:layout. We don't use H1 =blah= headings as section headings. They should be H2 ==blah== instead. Look at Wikipedia:Guide to Layout. I'm not interested in the content of the article - I was trying to get the article to conform to house style. Secretlondon 14:17, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it doesn't belong at all. I'm not sure, but anyway, you won't stop people wanting that page, so a way to keep it NPOV will be easier than just suggesting it doesn't exist at all. Angela. 20:52, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've noticed that the four or five people who regularly contribute to Mormonism pages have the tendency to leave Wiki links in for pages/concepts that we feel need to be addressed, but fail to create the page that the link points to.
I propose that we clean this up. I've compiled a list of pages that need to be added or unlinked. Going forward, if you add in a link for a page that you intend to create, please create a stub page and fill in the basic info or bullet outline of what you feel it should cover and then include it on the List of articles about Mormonism so we can all contribute and finish the pages quicker.
I’ve included a reference page for each subject/blank page, however, I found at least two or three similar Wiki links (or reference pages) that point to the same subject/blank page for most of the links. Visorstuff 22:31, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks for the deletions of extraneous links - you do a fine job editing. We all have the tendancy to bite off more than we can chew in one setting, but it is getting better. I was just shocked to see the ratios of how many we have compared to other topics. Wow. Keep up the good work. Visorstuff 00:34, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
IMO, the talk should be left intact; it will go into an archive if the page fills up, and will help explain why you did the edits you did, perhaps long after your edit has been obscured by others' big and little changes to the article.
(Hopefully that does not make it feel futile to you: it's only by edits that get changed that we keep the thing advancing. [smile]) --Jerzy 22:49, 2004 Feb 4 (UTC)
The Purported cults page is there, but for some reason the direct to it is case sensitive. If the "c" in "cult" is lower case, then you should find it. I'll let you decide if it is NPOV or not, but the introduction paragraph asks for a balanced aproach.
Well, its a few minutes later, and while I've had problems with case sensitivity on some Wikipedia articles before, I was taken to Purported cults with both upper and lower case c just now. Good luck!
Fire Star 03:07, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. Mkmcconn 06:24, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your frank interaction on the page that describes the controversy, Mormonism and Christianity. It has been honest, stimulating and informative, without being unduly defensive; which it seems to me is the stuff of which good working partnerships is made, and the furnace from which sound wikipedia articles are forged. Mkmcconn 18:46, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix on the Reformed Egyptian page. Good NPOV. Ddama
Hello Hawstom, I hope you can vote to keep the Template:Cults on Vote for deletion of media wiki Cults The reason I ask you is because you have contributed to purported cults. Thanks in advance. The wikimedia cults will refer to all articles that are essential to understand cults. I think these are Cult of personality, Propaganda , Fundamentalism , Guru Shepherding, Communal reinforcement. It will be added as a footer to all the articles that deal primarily with cults i.e. Cult , Purported cults, Christian countercult movement , Anti-cult movement , Exit counseling , Thought reform , Deprogramming , Mind control & Brainwashing The difference between a See also list is that the wikimedia cults refers to essential articles. The See also list will also refer to side issues. It will not be placed as a footer under individual groups because of POV issues. Andries 18:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for the edit. BTW, I think you're a Mormon (I recently had a conversation with a Mormon missionary) Can you help me find my geneological records? I can't find the names "Florentino Cu" and "Edward Sy Cu" in the www.familysearch.org website. Can you help me out?
Talk:Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Reply, 6 weeksoverdue, in context at Talk:Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints --Jerzy(t) 03:42, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
I agreed with your request and moved the image of the TOCOLDS to the COLDS page from the Mormon page. I don't think I would have minded at all if you'd done it. :) PhiloVivero 09:19, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
LDS miscellaneous topics
Thanks for leaving me a message. I'm sorry for not replying quickly because I didn't notice the message right away.
I wasn't able to find the names of my deceased relatives in the well-known geneology websites, including the one you offered. Anyway, I did find the name "Florentino Cu" (grandfather) at a geneology site (I forgot the site) but then I knoticed there was a fee, unlike other sites. Also, are geneology search engines compatible with Chinese characters? Do you think ancestral records from the People's Republic of China are readily available?
Since you're a Mormon and you are familiar with Mormon research and theology, are you well acquainted with the (alleged) link between Freemasonry and Mormonism? (I'm very inquisitive about this matter but please it is not my intention to offend you) Over the last months, I have encountered some information over the similarities of Masonic rituals or culture with that of Mormonism: such that perfectionist tendencies, racial segregation, temple architecture and terminology, parallel theologies,etc. And maybe also Joseph Smith's membership in that organization. Could you give me some comments or ideas concerning this matter?
Thanks for your time...
- Kenneth - your comments are over-generalized and over-simplified - even in a historical perspective - and from a cultural standpoint. Yes, there are similarities, which are not unusual - may want to spend some time reading Temple and Cosmos by Hugh Nibley if you are really interested in this topic. Gives similarities between temple worship of latter-day saints and masons, and other ancient religious rites. Very enlightening, and worth a trip to your library. Also, see Endowment_(Mormonism) -Visorstuff 01:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Kenneth, I don't know all that much about Freemasonry. I do know that Joseph Smith was quite impressed with Freemasonry and reported that he thought there were many truths in its rites. Joseph Smith was for a time quite enthustiastic about Freemasonry, and ascended rapidly within the organization. I think Joseph Smith would have been very comfortable with the idea that the temple endowment resembled the ceremonies of Freemasonry. Tom 04:21, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
About Heaven, please explain why you removed and why you are not sure. Then, I have a question. In Nontrinitarian, Latter Day Saints are labeled as nontrinitarians, is this right? I think LDS believe Trinity differed from Catholic and Protestant. K.M. 13:49, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer about Trinity. K.M. 07:17, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Geneology in China
Geneology in China Do you think thh Church, under its FamilySearch Family History Library, contains geneological records from the present People's Republic of China? Is the website compatible with Chinese characters in its search engine? Kennethduncan 05:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)Kenneth
K.M. and a warning
I have not an offensive intention, but I think this information is worthy to share with you. I know K.M. in Japanese version of Wikipedia, where his violation of NPOV policy and his mysterous inclination to hide his own sources occured trobules. We have suspected his contributions were merely copies of Jehowah's Wittnesses printed matters, and just recently we have found our suspicions were regretfully right. K.M. didn't want to explain us why he did so and even now he claims those contributions has totally come from his own brain. and he is troubled with reverting others' comments on note pages. He has been therefore banned from Japanese Wikipedia. Besides all the troubles, I think it is better for us to notice K.M.'s contribution is under a strong suspicion of submittion copyrighted work without permission. His recent contributions in English version, they focus on the same field we has been involved in troubles in Japanese version. KIZU 10:35, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
About Heaven, I don't want to do edit war. So, please explain what you think about it's NPOV. And, about Japanese Wikipedia, KIZU and I occurred edit war there, but I don't want to do so in English Wikipedia. Please be cool to discuss. Thank you for your advise. K.M. 03:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Joseph Smith article
I think I got the First Vision importance text right this time. :)
--- Eric (www.wadhome.org)
Hi, I responded to your concern on the article talk page: I believe NPOV in the Jesus article is provided by a multitude of sections, each of which provides a different set of views. I removed what I took to be a secular historical speculation out of the section on Christian views, only because it didn't seem to be identified as a Christian view (I think secular/critical historians are well-represented in a later section). I may have misunderstood you though; perhaps you are saying many Christians believe that Jesus' father was a Roman soldier. Even if many individual Christians do believe this, I don't think it belongs in a section on Christian views -- we don't claim to represent every individual point of view, but rather established points of view of scholars and religious (in this case) movements. If there is an established Church or Christian movement that indeed believes that Jesus' father was a Roman soldier, please put that back in the section. However, I ask you not simply to revert. Please put it back in the section, but also with an attribution (which Christians believe this). Thanks, Slrubenstein
Mormonism and Christianity
Tom, I've opened a semi-private experiment at User:Mkmcconn/Scratchpad, that may be of interest to you. It's something I started to do some time ago, and dropped because I didn't know where to go from where I stopped. You and others can respond if you want, on the Talk of that page. Mkmcconn — 19:16, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Are you sure that quote on your profile "Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in his views and boundless in his mercies than we are willing to believe or receive." is by Joseph Smith? I remember Jeffrey R. Holland saying almost exactly the same thing in the April (or maybe October) 2003 General Conference. You might want to check that out. Cookiecaper 17:07, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Compromise in intro
Regarding your September 7, 2004 edit to the intro of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... I think I can live with your new wording as a reasonable compromise. I assume you think so too. As I said on my own Talk page today, I can see now that saying "it claims" was probably a poor choice of words on my part.
One thing that sometimes frustrates me about Wikipedia is that you and I and half a dozen other editors can work hard to hammer out a fair, NPOV way to talk about something, all be happy, and then six months later someone new will come along and undo all that work, tilting it back one way or the other. Can't really blame them, and I don't really think every new user should be required to read a year or more worth of Talk pages before editing an article (though that might help)... don't know what the general solution is. Anyway, I'm glad we seem to be in agreement with this edit at least. Wesley 16:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, my friend, for your very kind words. You are very generous. :)) ---Rednblu 17:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're welcome, although I've made a number of edits, so I'm not sure which one(s) you meant. ;^)
(Is this really the way to communicate in wiki? Is this the same as messages? I'm fairly new to wiki, and I'm not that comfortable with how to communicate with people.
It just seems awkward since all messages are global and mixed together with all the other messages to you. For example, will this edit trigger a "new message" for you, or do I have to go through your "Leave me a message" link? (Which I lifted for my user page ... thanks!) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 20:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Cool! I hadn't thought of diff. That makes life so much easier.
It took me a while to get the signature right. I didn't realize that links to the page show up as bold instead of a link, so I kept thinking I was doing something wrong until I tried it on my home page and noticed the other link wasn't there. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 01:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)