User talk:Storm Rider/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Barnstar Awards

i'm flabergasted at the fact anyone's given you a barnstar award for civility, Stormrider. In the discussion we've had over on Exaltation: Mormonism, you' been blatantly dishonest about the teachings of the LDS Church. Is there A Barnstar for that?

Irrelevant polemics

The kind of crap you posted at Talk:Temple garment is irrelevant and actively harmful toward working on the encyclopedia. This is not a chat forum. Please, if that's how you're going to be, just stay away from that article. Things work better when editors are civilized and stay on topic. Friday (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my page was interesting. I happen to disagree with you. When you go out of your way to make a comment to someone with whom you disagree, me for example, and you so blatantly overlook complete stupidity of those with whom you agree leads me to think you might not be the best judge in this situation. For Wikipedia to succeed and for individual editors to excel, one must be able to work with those who disagree with our particular viewpoint. One must come to an understanding of what is appropriate and what is not.

Your ignoring Duke53's comment of calling a vagina a pussy and also stating that "we all just need to live with it" is a prime example of your lack of judgement. Instead of leaving a comment on his talk page (a person who agrees with your position), you chose to leave a comment on my page and calling my comments "crap". I guess the old adage of beauty being in the eye of the beholder is apropos in this instance. I encourage you to reflect on your actions, come to understand that to judge others is fine, but better yet is to learn to judge from a principaled position and not just those with whom you disagree. In doing so, you will have learned wisdom and fairness. Others might even come to respect you as a fellow editor.

In closing, I will continue to edit those articles that are of interest to me and where I can offer the most expertise. This article is one of them. Cheeers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

blocking the IP

I understand your concern. However, I do not see the need to block an IP that has not edited for over 2 hours and not vandalized since the last warning. Additionally, the 1-week block was on October 27, not November 27. However, if the IP does vandalize again, I will block it for another week. You can also ask some other administrators what they think. Academic Challenger 07:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Tone

Storm Rider, comments like this have a passive-aggressive tone and just inflame things further. I wonder if you are letting your emotions drive your discussion style too much. I don't mean to lecture you but I'm sure you wouldn't want to post things that you'd later regret or that would have adverse consequences for the things you care about. Of course, if you have any similar feedback for me I welcome your comments. Best wishes, alanyst ^/talk/ 03:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I admittedly have a difficult time with comments that are without logic, backwards, and just plain false. It is impossible for something to be the opposite of itself. I am not sure how best to handle these type of edits. I suspect the best way is just quit feeding the trolls. There is much wisdom in such a statement, but lately I have noticed a surprising coincidence where no comment becomes interpreted as acceptance of the statement as fact. Of course this mindset can easily turn into a need to respond to everything perceived as negative, which I don't think is necessary. My objective is to determine the stage most important in which to take a stand; Village pump seems like a stage that would have the most impact on the community at large. Do you think it would be better to just ignore those types of comments, those that are obviously lacking in thought, and move on? Your comments are appreciated and I can use some direction in this regard. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly no paragon in this regard, but I'll share my thoughts. First off, in this particular case, I read Duke53's response to Visorstuff differently than I think you did. To me, it seemed that Duke53 took Visorstuff's post to mean that the IP address is owned by Property Reserve, not Intellectual Reserve, and so Duke53 contradicted that by pointing out the WHOIS report. I think you interpreted Visorstuff's comment differently, in that the IP address is assigned to Property Reserve internally but owned by Intellectual Reserve. With that mindset, Duke53's reply just seems like being contrary purely for the sake of it, without any sort of legitimate rebuttal of fact. (Kind of like: "The sky is blue." "You're wrong, this site clearly says the sky is blue.") And so out of annoyance, you responded. I was taken aback by your response because I didn't have the same perception as you, but also because of the emotion communicated in it that seemed disproportionate to the topic.

That's my take on this specific instance. More generally, here are some random thoughts, maxims, whatever about these sorts of online discussions.

• Don't post out of negative emotion; post out of love even (or especially) for your adversary, while still remaining true to fact, policy, and your principles. This is hard.
• Even when you feel your position is generally misunderstood, the larger community will usually arrive at a tolerable resolution of a dispute if given the chance. Most editors reading the discussion (which are more than just those participating) are rational, and can quickly discern who in the conversation is being thoughtful and logical, or who is simply agitating and pushing or defending an agenda. Antagonistic editors quickly lose influence in the community; people can see right through the facades they try to erect. Let that happen.
• Calmly explain your position, frankly admitting points that are weak, that you are uncertain about, or that others in good faith can disagree with. Be completely honest with yourself and then let others see it. Also be honest about others' valid points and legitimate actions, even if it's painful to admit it.
• Sarcasm is effective only in sparing quantities and at infrequent intervals. (The appropriate response to this is: "Yeah, right." =)
• Silence in the face of a challenge can sometimes be interpreted as capitulation, but it can also be interpreted as wise restraint and consideration for the community.
• Amass as much "benefit of the doubt" as you possibly can contain and then be extraordinarily generous with it. Ask questions to verify assumptions you're making about another person's reasoning or motivations before challenging them. Give them multiple chances to retract, elaborate, or alternatively re-assert their position, until there's no room for reasonable doubt as to what that is. Even for editors with whom you have had past conflict, let the Doubt-O-Meter reset somewhat (even if not all the way) in new encounters with those people. People can change, even from day to day or depending on what the topic at hand is.

Sorry for the voluminous discourse, but you asked for it! :) I'd like to reiterate that I'm a better preacher than practitioner, so don't hesitate to quote any of this back at me or come up with new ones applicable to my own behavior anytime. Cheers, alanyst ^/talk/ 05:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I don't mean to imply that all of the points above apply to you. You are the only one here who can judge that, naturally. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Mythology Category

Although i've never liked how Mythology has that double definition that the lay reader is unlikely to know about, I don't see how, after reading the article, a person is going to see that category and say "Ah, everything in this article was fake, good to know", since I suspect a name such as "Christian mythology" is more likely to elicit curiosity, resulting in them clicking on it, and seeing the note about the double definition. The article does not present Jesus as a mythical figure, and so therefore, I think it would be very uncommon indeed for someone's impression of the subject to be adversly affected by reading "Christian mythology" as a category at the bottom. Though it would be nice if a better word for that category existed. Homestarmy 16:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mountain Meadows massacre. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Happy holidays !

You may want to consider endorsing this petition: User_talk:Friday#Petition_to_recall_User:Friday_from_the_position_of_admin. StuRat 12:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Seer Stones in Mormonism

Hi Storm Rider: I have some concerns with your restoration of deleted material in Seer stones in Mormonism. The person who deleted that material was the author of it, and he did so because he recognized that it was incorrectly placed in the middle of a paragraph, literally mid-thought. Further, it's a mess.

I'm not opposed to this type of material in the article, but it can't be plopped wherever, and it needs some serious reworking. Perhaps another section within the article could be created where differences between the Mormon and Hebrew Urim and thummim could be discussed. I'm not sure, however, if even this has a place within this article (which is focused on Mormonism and seer stones) and when this information is adequately covered within the intro to Urim and Thummim where it states that: "According to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they were also used to translate ancient manuscripts; however, their recorded use by Joseph Smith, Jr. is not in conjunction with their recorded historical use by the Hebrews."

My concern is that the current configuration is a prescriptive approach, rather than descriptive. No article should say "this is right" and "this is wrong"--it should only report facts--and as of right now, it is failing to do so effectively. I am going to add a section on differences; perhaps some of the material can be salvaged there. You might also want to check out: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seer stones and Urim Thummim. Regards, --Rojerts 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely that articles should only be descriptive; Wikipedia does not state what is "true" or "right", but only what is believed or what was reported to have happened.

There is confusion within much of what is written about Mormon history between the Urim and Thummim and Seer stones. Joseph Smith was reported to have used both. The issue of seer stones is a particularly favorite subject in anti-Mormon literature so it often can hit a sensitive nerve with LDS that are not completely familiar with history. Conversely, others feel Joseph carried around a peep stone constantly and was only familiar with the workings of magic to ensure that we might understand his religion is based upon the works of Satan. It is an interesting dichotomy.

It may be that a single sentence is enough, but I would ask that we study it further. The renamed article limits the subject to seer stones and that should now be the driving subject. I will return later today and look at the article again. If it has not been already edited let's align the paragraphs more appropriately. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree regarding the apprehension many LDS have with the seer stone subject--all too often, "anti" material will include so much that is spurious that when it does have historical fact (such as the seer stone translation of the BoM), LDS members refuse to accept it. And, it doesn't help that much of LDS history is given in a prescriptive manner where any topic that might shake one's faith is left out. David Whitmer's 1887 account is all but unknown among most LDS members, wherein he states that Joseph Smith "would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat...."

I look forward to your comments. Regards,--Rojerts 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The translation of the Book of Mormon is an interesting subject. Joseph said very little about it and all we have is second hand informtion such as what you stated. It appears that Joseph may have used the U&T, the seer stone(s), or nothing all for the transaltion process. However, it has always puzzeled me that Joseph would receive an item from God specifically to be used for translation and he would turn around and use a seer stone. Simply using nothing makes more sense to me, but even then the U&T was not an insignificant item to be put aside. There are some other thoughts, but we can talk about those later. It does make me question the second-hand stories, but they need to be stated. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Side note- sorry to butt in. It is interesting to look at when he used each of the specific items - the U&T was to receive revelation and for translation, it was used for translation, but remember that smith had them taken from him and had to rely on other means for a time - later he had only them to rely on. In addition, smith used one stone (seerstone) or another stone(s) (the U&T) for the same thing - in this case, each was being used as a urim and thummin per the definition. Finally, smith was familiar with using the seer stone - and the U&T according to mother smith opened his views to much more than the book of mormon translation -which could have been distracting during the translation process (hense the use of a hat at times). And using the priesthood as context, neither device was used much after the restoration of the priesthood, which led to a stonger companionship of revelation and the spirit. Just some context of my own reading. -Visorstuff 20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The revision looks good, although I question the edits in the last paragraph of the section "Other Seer Stones in Mormonism." If you get a chance, could you justify the changes? Thanks!--Rojerts 01:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Kidnapping

Yep. Thanks for remarking on it. Gwen Gale 06:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Blanking

Sorry! I was just testing the article. Alright? Im only new.

Lost Book Edits

Thanks. If your interested in what I am saying, check out these links that I have been digging up for the last thirty minutes. [1] [2] [3] [4] Solon Olrek 19:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus and being PC

I'm contacting you personally because I wanted to explain a little further, while I acknowledge this has little to do with the ongoing discussion at talk:Jesus. All cultures/religions have mythologies, meaning "A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes." There is the implication in the word "mythology" that the stories in question are legendary, pseudo-historical, or even fictitious, and rightly so. Now it offends some Christians when you suggest that women cannot give birth without sexual intercourse or IVF, it offends them if you tell them men cannot walk on water, and that you cannot snap your fingers and turn water into wine, or that you cannot feed 4000/5000 people with a small basket of bread and fish. But how is this any different from saying that Krishna did not lift up a mountain with his pinky when he was a child, or that a global flood never occurred, or that Muhammad did not split the moon, or that Zoroaster did not fight Daēvas, or that the Bab did not predict the coming of Bahá'u'lláh, etc. It is a double standard to call a body of non-western, often time supernatural, religious stories about cultural history, "mythology", but not do the same thing for Christian stories. We are being politically correct because some Christians are offended by suggesting they simply believe "fairy tales" (when 'myth' does not necessarily have to mean that). All that said, I will admit that this is an issue bigger than wikipedia. It is part of our language and culture to believe those crazy stories in the Vedas and the Iliad/Odyssey are myths, but those crazy stories in the bible are honest to goodness theology (or whatever analog you want to call it). Objectively speaking, they serve the same cultural purpose, and can both be classified as mythologies. The desire to shy away from that term only comes from fear of offending certain Christians. All that said, I agree that we shouldn't offend Christians here at wikipedia, but I'm not going to lie about being PC in this matter. While I may partially agree with Mcorazao's motives, I do not believe wikipedia is the platform to encourage Christian self-examination by means of imposing a controversial category. Sorry for the rant.--Andrew c 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I understand completely what you are saying, and I think our positions are awfully close. I just personally believe that an objective outsider may classify the whole bible as a specific definition of 'mythology', along with the whole Rig Veda, while individual practitioners of these religions may object, on the basis of another specific definition of 'mythology'. The definition you allude to, I consider not exactly 'mythology' per se, but more like legendary tales or folklore. But again, because the word mythology is ambiguous on top of being controversial I do nto advocate it's use in this context (of course). Thanks again for the brainfood. -Andrew c 01:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say a myth is any legend that didn't really happen. Obviously "history" ( including legends) is either true or false. I believe that all those non-christian legends are myths. Are the Cristian legends of miracles impossible? Sort of. Thats kind of the point! A miracle is anything that truly defies the laws of physics. They ARE impossible for anyone except God. Zantaggerung 15:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Good to hear from you. I'll drop by and take a look within a day or two — my editing will be somewhat sporadic while I'm back (because it's mostly a diversion from a job search), but I'll get there sooner or later.

I hope things are going well with you. Tijuana Brass 08:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the article some. It doesn't seem at hotly contested as other LDS related ones are — has it quieted down some? In any case, I had some suggestions which I posted at Talk:Golden Plates that it'd be good to have your input on. Tijuana Brass 23:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued from BoM discussion

What I was saying is: there are religions like the nation of Islam which claim history that is completely unsubstiated, and on this encyclopedia is labeled as pseudohistory. Why does Mormon pseudohistory get expemted from it? And I can provide information on the societies of ancient America, try me, though I am not proffesional, this is my faviorte thing in history to study. Even if it is pseudohistory, that shouldn't change your belifs, you have that "burning in your bossum" and your "testimoney" that is more then adequetly making the book of Mormon true for you. This does not make it true in reality by any stretch of the imagination, but you can belive whatever you want. There are wackos that belive that the white race was created by a man named "Yakub" though they don't respect me, I respect them (though I am glad that they are not present here in SLovakia). My point is, you can belive this, but it has no historical value. This is not a POV, it is a fact that stands the historical value of the book of Mormon from a purely historical value is zero, none what so ever. That is why it should be tagged as such, or if we are going to get into this objective truth nonsense the category of pseudohistory should be done away with. Why should we stop at allowing this to be passed off as history? I think that this is a true NPOV, looking at only the facts, and not just at the fact that there are enough people with a "burining in their bossum" that edit this website to use that as evidence for it being treated differently then other pseudohistory. This is a true NPOV. --Jorbian 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Science can be intertwined with religon. As for your comments that it cannot be proven archeolgoicaly that Jesus healed the sick and rose on the third day, there are alot of things in the Bible that can be proven. For example, it can be proven that Babylon and Assyria did at one point conquer Israel and deport its inhabitents, because the records of both corroberate the stroy. It can be proven that a census was taken in Judea a few years prior to Qunius's governing of Syria. It can be proven very easily. It can be proven that Jesus was cruficied. The fact that Jesus existed cannot even be accurately refuted. It can also be proven that Judas Maccabee and his brother existed. The point I am making is that the Bible is correct on so many things that it can be considered a book of history as well as religion. The same cannot be said of the book of Mormon. And I was not saying that truth is reletive, that is a very foolish belif to hold, I was merely stating that you have a right to belive whatever you wish to be absolute truth (which in itself does not make it truth.) And the reason that I am not trying to do this with the Bible and Quran is because of the fact that: the Bible is well proven by existing evidence and so much of the Quran (as far as the history goes) is lifed from the Bible that I am fairly confident that they are both good historical sources. 40% of the cities mentioed in the bible are known to have existed, compare that with 0% in the book of Mormon.

My original point is that there is a double standard. Why does the NoI's fake history get different treatement then that LDS's? --Jorbian 15:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you had continued your conversation elsewhere. Have you had a chance to check out my Book of Mormon "pseudohistory" discussion comment? I believe that there is a way to remain neutral without playing the faith v. evidence card. Comment is below. Regards--Rojerts 20:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. There are a whole lot of exclamation marks being thrown around here, so I hesitate to enter. But, I think I have something worth offering. Religious Studies hold that sacred books are neither history or pseudohistory.

For example, if we look at the Bible, we find several disputed areas where there is no historical evidence to back up its time line or facts, especially within the first 12 chapters of Genesis--but even the Exodus is troublesome in terms of history. Yet it is still contextually meaningful regardless of what can or can't be dug up to verify the event. These types of books are written with less emphasis on historical fact, and more upon instilling faith and showing God's hand at work among his people. In Religious Studies, this is called a Sacred history. The Bible, Book of Mormon, and the story of Yakub would all fall under this category.

A Sacred history article on Wikipedia has not yet been written. I am happy to contribute to it, and welcome participation. What are your thoughts? Is a Sacred history tag for this article and others (versus either a history or pseudohistory tag) an acceptable move? Regards,--Rojerts 16:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with this category. I have a predisposition to not favor an ever-increasing number of categories to accomdate progressively smaller and smaller groups. The things to consider are: What does this category offer that would be helpful to readers? Is this category already served by another category that is currently not being used fully? Are we creating something useful to all or just a small minority of readers i.e. someone with a axe to grind? I am sure that others have created better criteria, but these are some of the things that spring immediately to mind. I will say that if a new category is needed, this one is infinitely better than that offered by Jorbian. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bolam

Haha I didn't notice someone had slipped that one in there. Gwen Gale 21:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Storm Rider, on the Irene Craigmile Bolam article, how would you feel about adding a sentence that would refer to Joe Klaas' book as pseudohistory? Every so often someone will write a book or publish an article on some historical figure making unsubstantiated claims--this, unfortunately, is another case of that. Thoughts? ProfessorPaul 05:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am probably more careful than others on labeling things as pseudohistory. I think it would be best to add a referenced statement from an expert that called the book pseudohistory; does that sound appropriate to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I will look and see if such a statement from an expert does exist; if so, a one sentence statement with a a reliable source and link should do it fine. Thank you. ProfessorPaul 05:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism and Christianity

I just wanted to say that I think your approach in the recent discussions has been a shining example of true Christianity. 74s181 12:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to let you know, it's been really good having you and 74s181 on the Mormonism and Christianity page. You've made some excellent contributions and it's been nice to have some fellow LDS folks supporting eachother in the work that we're doing there. I'm posting the same message to 74s181's page... Keep it up!Mpschmitt1 02:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've worked with Storm Rider, Tom Hawstrom, Visorstuff and others for years now, and they've earned my respect. That's why I expect that eventually they'll explain to you youngsters by example, how it's possible to be a good Mormon and a good Wikipedian. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism and Jesus as extra-terrestrial from Pleiades star cluster

I am in the process of addressing your referencing concerns on Talk:Mormonism --24.57.157.81 03:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten it. I hope it is now more congenial and conducive to discussion. I am sincere in my attempts to learn about LDS, though I'm going to be blunt and frank, as an encyclopedist should be. Remember that most of what I know about LDS is based on anti-LDS literature I find on the Internet (it being difficult to find LDS literature which answers their points succinctly and without religious ornamentation). --24.57.157.81 03:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bluntness and frankness is not discouraged on Wikipedia. However, I find the premise of your positiong interesting. You only read anti-Mormon literature...do you think it is not without religious "ornamentation"? Please be serious. ANTI anything is propaganda designed for a specific purpose. If you were really serious you would be studying Mormonism from Mormon sites; there are many of them. Tell me, if you wanted to learn how to make a watch would you go to the butcher to learn? The same is done for virtually everthing. If you want to learn about Buddism, study something that was printed by a Buddist. If you want to learn about Catholicism; study the catechism. This is not a novel principle, but it is certainly telling about who is attempting to learn. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Christianity (Nicene Creed)

I noticed you took part in the straw poll. Please visit the talk page to engage in the discussion, so we may build consensus. Vassyana 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Baptism for the dead

Your vote has helped baptism for the dead be selected as the March 2007 Mormon Collaboration of the Month. I look forward to working with you on the article. uriah923^(talk) 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nontrinitarian links

I understand your purpose in re-adding the links; however, let me explain my reasoning beyond the confines of the edit summary box.

• Since there is already an article on the Nontrinitarian viewpoint, it isn't necessary to devote considerable resources to this page. That's redundant, and also echoes the fact that some Nontrinitarians have been suggesting adding more arguments against the Trinity to this article.Why? A link to Nontrinitarian, and a summary that a minority disagree with the Trinitarian view is all that's necessary to say on the Trinity page.
• Additionally, it's unusual that this article had more Nontrinitarian links than Trinitarian ones... and also that this article had more Nontrinitarian links than the Nontrinitarian article (that is, until I moved the links from Trinity to Nontrinitarian.
• You say that both sides are needed to show balance, however, there is already a Nontrinitarian article to balance the viewpoint, and a link from Trinity to that page.Once again, it is redundant to devote more than a paragraph or two of space in the Trinity article to nontrinitarian views.

I believe it's unnecessary to include said links on both pages. Please feel free to share your thoughts with me, preferably on my talk page.--C.Logan 20:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I view the two articles as a fork that really is not appropriate. However, in that there are two articles and editors are resistent to have a single artile given the length of each, it does make sense that the topics of both articles be the major respective focus. That does not mean however a a reader is getting a balanced article because they can seek out the other article. I think that is strongly against WIKI policy. Both articles should focus on their topic and give space, references, and links that support the opposing theology. We don't need to "cover up" the other side and neither position is harmed by a firm acknowledgement of opposing ideas. I do not wish to offend, but I really think this borders on censorship. We produce better articles when each articles stands on its own as balanced, if not we are only writing propaganda. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Censorship would be more of an issue if I were to have completely deleted this links from Wikiexistence... however, I just relocated them to their proper position within Wiki: in the article to which they lend support. I didn't delete the Nontrinitarian views section, which I believe is a sufficient bit of information regarding a dissenting viewpoint that has it's own page on which it's information can be relayed. Compare the Christianity article. It's fully apparent that there are about 4 billion or so people who don't agree with Christianity to varying degrees. The 2 articles, Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of the Bible, are briefly explained, and links are provided. However, the external links at the bottom of the page are solely Christian resources, not critical sites. Obviously, it would be very questionable to place the Islamic "Answering Christianity" link found on the Crit. of Christianity page in the links section of the Christianity page. Because the links that you support are polemical in nature, it would be better suited for the Nontrinitarian page, where such arguments are essential to the subject. If the Nontrin. article were short enough to warrant inclusion, than I would have no problem combining the articles and links.

If someone is curious of something, they'll seek it out. I doubt that anyone who would be interested in learning Nontrinitarian reasoning would miss the little blue link under the section heading.

I don't see it as censorship when a link to a 47kb page of dissenting views is presented with description in the middle of the article.--C.Logan 22:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't get too caught up in the semantics. The main point is the generally we do not allow forks on Wikipedia. If you want to balance the links do so (i.e. equalize the numbers of links so that one does not overshadow the other), but don't delete all of the links that are critical of a topic. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article on Christianity has a small referral section devoted to Criticism of Christianity. Yet, there are no external links which deal in direct criticism of the topic. You'll find those at the Criticism of Christianity page, itself.

Similarly, the Christianity article includes sections both regarding the Trinity and Nontrinitarianism. However, there are (again) no external links in direct reference to either of those topics. Those links can be found at their respective topic pages. Nor are there any links which are specifically concerning Criticism of the Bible, because (again) those links are found at that particular page. This is why Answering-Islam.org[5] will never be seen amongst the external links of the Islam article. It is a dissenting view, yes, and it will bring up good points of argument, but the Islam page is a page which focuses primarily on simple facts, rather than arguments. The Criticism of Islam page serves that purpose, and so you will find the aforementioned site linked there (that is, if Muslim readers cease with the constant deletion of information from the Criticism page).

While it can be argued that Nontrinitarianism is not the same as a Criticism article, they are in essence the same. Nontrinitarianism is not so much a new belief system as it is a reformation of an old one, achieved by arguing away doctrines which are seen by the group as false (with the exception of Mormonism, as that's a more complicated case). Nontrinitarian sites are similarly much more often resources for polemics against orthodox Christian doctrines than they are community sites or general resources. The tone of the Nontrinitarianism article is nearly the same as that of an article focused on direct criticism, and it offers many thought-provoking points to the reader. As it is, I had made an attempt to improve both articles by curtailing what was out of place in one, and what was perfectly appropriate and supportive to another.--C.Logan 09:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Your hard work, civility and constant striving to improve Wikipedia is sincerely appreciated. Please know your efforts have not gone without notice. Vassyana 09:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with Christianity History?

Hi Storm Rider,

I found you via the Christianity article. I am currently working on the Nero article and was wondering if we could get some outside help on the section concerning Nero in Christian Tradition. Your help would be greatly appreciated!

Best regards,
Djma12 ^(talk) 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Storm Rider, this and this just aren't in keeping with WP:CIVIL. Please consider this a friendly warning to stay cool; I'm sure you wouldn't want to find yourself blocked as a result of incivility. (In case it sounds otherwise, this is not a threat, but an earnest caution.) Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Storm, believe me I know it can be hard sometimes but stay cool. You're a great editor and if someone is really getting under your skin, it's best to walk away and come back a bit later. WP:BACKLOG could always use the help if you need some distracting. ;o) G-d bless! Vassyana 18:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, thank you for your advice and Alanyst for your warning. Sarcasm is one of the tools I use to express displeasure with edits I find below the standard of Wikipedia. Generally, if not exclusively, it is used for editors that have repeatedly proven themselves uncooperative; such is the case here. It is true that as editors of a public encyclopedia we encourage and accept editors of all levels of expertise to contribute to articles of their choosing. However, I will say that I am not too tolerant of editors that have proven beyond doubt that they are not interested in improving Wikipedia, but rather are insistent in using it as a personal blog to display their POV. They are a nuisance and are responsible for "burning out" too many fine editors that would contribute further if they did not have to contend with this unhealthy element. I reject this element within our editorial ranks. My opinion is they should be banned after repeatedly failing a trial period and forgotten.

Please understand my comment was not an emotional outburst. The reason it smacked of sarcasm was because it was intended to be sarcastic and to warn the editor in question; nothing more, nothing less. However, the best advice is just ignore them; I fail to follow dictum as I should. I will strive to do better. Thanks again. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile :)

Vassyana has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

What are you?!!! Seriously, what do you belive? Do you follow a well known religion? Do you belive that any religion will work? Are you a Mormon? ( If so, I'd like to talk to you about Mormonism on my talk page) Sometimes you seem to be a Mormon, sometimes not. . . IT GETS CONFUSING!!! Zantaggerung 15:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, debating seeks to convince, not necessarily to prove. Also you say you profess Mormon faith, but you also say you find truth in many other religions. Do you mean basic truth? Or do you mean, as you sort of conveyed, that you believe a hodge-podge of all sorts of religions? Do you really believe in your reliigion as essintial, and the most important thing, or is it just a source of . . . "inspiration"? By the way, I realized my unusual punctuation could be misread. If it was thought rude I apoligize. It wasn't intended to be. Zantaggerung 00:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Becoming an Administrator

I'm thinking about nominating myself to become an administrator, and I seem to recall you are one, so I thought I would talk to you first.

The main reason I'm considering becoming an administrator is because I have been actively adding user warning templates to talk pages. I am assuming that if I were an administrator, I could block a user directly rather than going through the page to request blocking. I could also monitor the blocking request page and block users when appropriate.

Any thoughts? Thanks in advance! wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are too busy to respond, you missed it when I added this, or whatever. If I don't hear from you soon, I guess I will simply nominate myself for administrator. Let me know if you have any thoughts, suggestions, etc. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I just wanted to invite you to vote on the admin nomination of Bill Pringle here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wrp103. COGDEN 20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You mention that you would have nominated Bill Pringle yourself if you were an administrator. I didn't realize you weren't one. I would nominate you except that I think I'm a pretty marginal admin myself who has not always gotten along well with others (in other words, I think my recommendation wouldn't be so great). That said, I think you'd be a great candidate but for having little experience in XfD. It's silly to me, but many folks oppose those who don't have enough Wikipedia space or XfD experience. Your mastery of wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV, WP:OR is demonstrated by your article-building.

What I'm getting at, is that you could probably be an admin too if you want (especially if you have some "need for the tools"). If you participated in some XfD discussions for a month or so I think you'd be a shoe-in. Cool Hand Luke 22:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You are kind to think highly of my work; thank you. I think I am a better editor. As can be seen by my edit history, I strive for concensus. Because I focus on controversial pages it demands a lot of discussion on talk pages. At the present time I remain happy to just be an editor. As an aside, remember that I can be rather abrasive with editors that have no concept of WP:NPOV or who go out of their way to use Wikipedia as a personal soapbox. I do not excuse myself nor do I seek to be excused, rather I strive to learn how best to achieve cooperative effort. Thanks again; I am honored to have you offer. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I haven't yet thanked you for your thoughtful posting on my talk page. I do so now: thanks. It's good to know that disagreements don't keep us from mutual respect, cooperation and understanding. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

Storm, what do you think about the recent changes. I for my part am quite discontent with the bloating by adding off-section stuff (like baptism to the trinity section). Could you also comment on the issue raised in the "(Not so) Minor problems" section, at the bottom? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know if I have crossed the line.

I know that Wikipedia has pretty strong guidelines on personal attacks and criticism, but I really do need to be slapped sometimes, so if you think my recent comments on baptism for the dead have crossed the line, please feel free to 'slap' me. 74s181 12:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mormon-related controversies CfD

I removed about 40 articles from the list after I started the CfD, and others have removed a further six. What I left in were those articles that clearly discussed a controversy, or made enough of a mention that they were "controversial" (and I still came up a little short, it seems). That being said, if the cat is not deleted, a close eye on content will be warranted, and you seem to have a better handle on it than I do (the reason I tackled the CfD is because I don't have a vested interest related to the subject, and could be more or less NPOV about the "controversiality" of the article content). MSJapan 03:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate your work; thank you for doing a great job. My edits may have been too sloppy because the more I deleted the target category of Bigamist, the more frustrated I became with the senselessness of so much work. I would encourage you to reinstate those that you felt were appropriate for the category; I don't really have a horse in the race. I would not reverse your descision. cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

incomprehensible drivel

Am I the one writing "incomprehensible drivel"? I really need you to tell me this if true. 74s181 03:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, 74. But you do provide an illustration of the fact that, personal attacks made with eyes closed are even worse, because then crap gets smeared on everyone's face who didn't see it coming. I feel bad that you were in the way. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Storm Rider. I have great difficulty understanding human interaction in the 'real world', the electronic world levels the playing field somewhat but I still have difficulty from time to time. I still don't know what to think about Mark, I can't tell if he is sincere but I just don't understand him, or if he is not sincere. There is no way I can know the answer, so I am going to try to avoid interacting with him directly, at least for a while. Rest assured, the only thing I am going to 'give up' on is trying to help Mark understand what LDS believe.

Regarding my 'missionary' spirit. I did not serve a mission, I was going thru a rebelious period at that time of my life. So I don't have the experience that RMs have. For the several years I have been the Gospel Doctrine teacher in my ward, as a result I have been blessed with a true love of the scriptures and the doctrines they contain. This is new to me, although I have been active most of my life I never had that 'I KNOW' testimony until I had been teaching for a while. As a result I am an enthusiastic teacher.

There is something I'd like you to clarify if you would, you said "It is acceptable to discuss, share, and document what LDS believe here, but it is not the proper format to "teach". Did you mean that in the context of 'pearls before swine' or in the context of wiki-etiquitte? If the later, I understand the NPOV rules for article content, but I thought this didn't apply to talk pages. Or, maybe you're refering to things I've written in articles? Your comments would be appreciated, either here or on my talk page.

FYI, Mark has posted a comment on my talk page. He is being critical of someone, I'm not sure if it is you or me. I'm going to respond, but carefully. 74s181 19:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I got an edit conflict when I tried to post this, Mark is here as well. 74s181 19:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Topics vs people

I'll remind you because I think you mean well but you're frustrated, when you say things like "incomprehensible drivel. When conversing with others who repeatedly use the method I find it sad", etc.; or when you take the "get off your high horse" approach, WP:NPA is there to remind you that you're not helping. Even if you were right, it doesn't help; that's what User talk will help you work out. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark, when you use parable to respond and then admit that it was intended to be incomprehensible it does little to assuage the perceptions of others that you are serious. I think you have dealt unfairly with 74 and I find that sad. You have an almost condescending attitude in some of your responses. If you are going to interact with him, do so honestly, directly, and with candor. He is sincere in his/her desire to interact with you, but it is too easy to doubt the same of you. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, when I make a personal attack at someone, I will do so directly. However, when I am counseling another editor on how best to interact it is hardly a personl attack. It may be that you are wearing your feelings on your sleeve and are too willing to take offense at conversations where you are not involved. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

When you make these attacks, as I see you are in the habit of doing from your edit history, acknowledge them as what they are and acknowledge the damage that they do, and go from there. Everyone slips up. It's the people who feel justified in doing this that get in trouble. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments to 74s181, which I hope will satisfactorily show you that, while I cannot agree with you in your estimation of my motives, and must sternly reject the manner in which you communicated that opinion, I do take your criticisms seriously. If you see what I'm saying there, I think you'll also see why we have every reason to put this behind us and move on to work together. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Just so that you and I are clear; my conversation was directly with 74; you were certainly the topic because you were the offender. I remain adament that I did not attack you. Anytime you freely admit to "answering" in parables and then state it was meant to be incomprehensible and follow it with nonanswers, it is acceptable to call a spade a spade. My concern was strictly to encourage 74 not to give up in reaction to your less than helpful responses and interactions. I will caution you not to threaten me, which you have done repeatedly the last few days; I consider it your attempt to bully. It does not work with me. I encourage you to focus on the article and improving the information provided Wikipedia's readers. Cheers! --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, both of you, please, just stop. Let's just try to move on, ok? 74s181 03:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Need advice

I was pretty discouraged Sunday night, I felt like it was my fault that you and Mark were arguing. I hope you weren't offended when I asked you to stop, I really do appreciate your help but I felt like it was turning into 'Gunfight at the WP corral', I didn't want to be the cause of that.

Anyway, the reason I am writing to you today is that I don't know what to do in this situation with Mark, it is still going on. I suspect he is watching, so it's hard to ask for advice on this, and it will be hard for you to respond without provoking him. So, please try to keep it friendly, but really, I don't know what to do. Is he right and I'm just wrong? Should I just ignore him, even on my talk page? 74s181 13:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about the conflict between Mark and me. He felt I was unjustified in my comments and I believe he had stepped over the line, which motivated my comments. However, I did not take his position personally and I do not think it prevents me in any way from working with him.

Mark has been around and we have interacted for some time; never as much as on this article, but I have always respected him as an editor. I have known some really bad editors that frequent Wikipedia, but they are by far the exception. The vast majority are bright, perceptive, and cooperative; I believe Mark falls into this category. He is only an editor and not the editor. Focus on the article or other articles for a time. Also, Mark is just human with his own weaknesses. As with all of us, it is easy for him to see shortcomings in others and not see them in himself. He is just as zealous in his committment to his religion as you are. Sometimes I think he has a blind spot in this regard and can say things that are very offensive to LDS, but I am convinced that it is not personal and should be overlooked.

When a topic/article is something you care about it is easy to become emotional or passionate. If you feel this is a topic that is too important to you, it may be best to edit elsewhere for a few days and then maybe come back to see what has happened. Nothing on Wikipedia is permanent. Articles are always in flux so you never miss anything.

I will take a look at the article later today and see if there is anything I can do to provide assistance. Keep you chin up; Wikipedia is a wonderful adventure and worth our participation. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Extermination order

Partially due to your vote, Extermination order has been selected as the Mormon collaboration of the month. I look forward to working with you on the article. uriah923^(talk) 19:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

APOSTASY IN QUESTION

Storm Rider, thanks for your comments. It should be noted that many of my edits derive from common knowledge about Evangelical Christianity & Judaism. I also noted that a substantial amount of your edits (along with others) don’t cite references either. As a scholarly community, it's assumed that we don’t need to cite every stroke of our pen - our professional knowledge serves as a reference itself in many cases. Our scholarly ethic depends on integrity. If our doctrine is in question, it can easily be verified through additional research by anyone.

In turn, what I'm seeing is the systematic elimination of contrary views. I’m convinced that even if I placed a reputable source (as I did on several edits), my words would be edited through bias.

Now for the Great Apostasy question. You raise a good point. How could there be 26,000 different Christian denominations if there was no "Apostasy"? Well, as a University Graduate student majoring in World Religions, I can assure you there's not nearly that many. By definition, the term "Evangelical" represents a single sect of Christianity. Evangelicalism has over 30 million adherents. Do the math...the population of the earth isn’t large enough for 26K "different" Christian faiths (30,000,000 people X 26,000 sects = 936 Billion people). Your proposal would be assuming that everyone alive on planet earth (and then some) are "Apostate Christians" - which we know isn’t true. Did I forget to add the additional 1 Billion Catholics – that would through your math further off the chart.

Conclusively, Mormons cite an "Apostasy" but have no historical evidence that it ever took place. Catholics KNOW the date and circumstances in which the Church was formed. Protestants KNOW the date and circumstances surrounding Martine Luther's "reformation". The notion of a "Great Apostasy" is like telling a patient they have Cancer but not specifying what type, how long they have to live or how to treat the disease. It's vague. Who would trust that doctor with their care? I would want specifics - Wouldn’t you?

Mmirarchi, I moved your edit to the bottom of this page. When you make new edits it is best to go to the end of the page or section to enter your edit. We generally seek to keep the page in chronological order by topic; thus your new topic would always begin at the bottom of the page. In addition, you shoul always sign your edit by typing four "~" tildes; that will automatically sign and date your edit.

Mormonism is a belief, your question is self-serving. When was the apostacy? It was Friay, at 3:16 p.m. 102 AD. The answer is irrelevant. We believe that over time the teachings of men were interjected into the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ. More importantly, these doctrines became central to Christianity and those things that Jesus taught took a secondary position. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity is not the litmus test for being called Christian by many Christian groups. The problem is that this issue was so secondary to other teachings it was never taught by Jesus Christ. Further, Jesus constantly taught repent and be baptized, but today baptism in many churches is a secondary issue that is little more than symbolic. However, Jesus taught it as central and He set the example by seeking it out for Himself while being perfect.

Let's focus on what has become Orthodoxy. Ehrman and White, two among many academics who are non Mormon, now reveal how the first 300 years of Christianity was a disparate grouping of beliefs that focused on Jesus Christ; at best there was a proto-orthodoxy, but there was hardley "the" Christian Church. It took a pagan ruler, Constantine, to assemble men to vote on what is Christianity and what is true doctrine. Not one of those who attended professed to be a prophet or to be led by the Spirit; they all voted to state what is true. That process was never known in God's religion; it did not happen in the either the Old Testatment or the New.

We view all of these things as signs of the Apostacy. I am also just speaking off the top of my head without attempting to reference any of it, but it suffices for a beginning to this conversation.

Now about math; logic is probably not the best tool to use in this discussion. You should probably review New edition of World Christian Encyclopedia, which tabulated 10,000 distinct religious groups, including 33,830 Christian denominations[6]. This makes my 26,000 number pale in comparaison; however, that is a neutral source.

Finally, do not give up on editing Wikipedia or be discouraged that your edits have been reverted. You must remember that Wikpedia has been around and those of us who have been here a while have gone through countless conversations and many of them on the same topic. Every few weeks we get a new editor who in their zeal is going to tell the world that Roman Catholicism is really the Great Whore of the Earth or that Mormonism is a major cult founded by a fraud and misguides people today. You will find entire articles on these subjects already. We do not promote writing religious tracts or witnessing by any group; it is not our purpose. Our purpose is to write informative articles that approach topics in as neutral position as possible. Each of us have something to provide. I would enourage you to take a breather and do some review of the talk pages; the more controversial the topic the larger the archives. You will see them at the top of every discussion page. As you read them you will quickly see that many of your ideas have been completely discussed. If nothing else it will help you understand how we cooperate as editors to produce great articles. Keep going, but do research first and then focus on discussing some of your controversial edits on the discussion page first. Cheers and I look forward to seeing more of your edits. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

--Storm Rider, Thanks again for your reply. I'll take your advice and use the talk pages to discuss significant changes from this point forward.

Although I cant find a way to agree with the proposal of "Apostasy" as defined by Mormonism, I appreciate your tact. I will concede however that orthodox Christianity has had a tumultuous past and Catholicism has marred the Christian reputation on several occasions. That aside, I still believe God is faithful and would preserve His Word regardless of mankind’s ignorance. As a believer in Judaism (although Yeshua is my Messiah & LORD), I'm compelled to side with my Gentile Christian brothers & sisters. Through Hebrew Scripture, we find a recurring theme - the LORD God of Isreal is Sovereign and not dependent on mankind to accomplish His purpose. In effect, that's the other side of the coin that should be discussed when we consider the effects of Apostasy. Would God allow such a degradation to last 1800 years before appearing to Joseph Smith? It's a valid question. God kept Christianity alive during the Roman prosecution under Nero and others - why not preserve it through an "apostasy"? Did He fail in this regard until the 19th century restoration? I don't believe so.

Stormrider, that raises another theological question for debate. Why then do you suppose the Hebrew / Christian Scriptures stand alone as a completed work? They start at the beginning of time and finish in the Book of Revelation - the end of time. Aren’t we living in between these two great events? Where then does the Book of Mormon fit into the equation - I honestly don’t know. It can’t come after Revelation and Scripture says nothing about another inspired Book (it actually states the opposite). So where do we place the Book of Mormon as stewards of the Tanakh & the Gospel? Mmirarchi 19:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Gold Plates

--Storm Rider, Thanks for your response. I'm getting to know how to use Wikipedia so I appreciate your help.

I just wanted to clarify something from our last conversation regarding Islam. Muslims actually have a few different versions of how Muhammad received his revelation of the Quran. It seems to depend greatly on what sect of Islam you belong to.

They can't seem to arrive on a concise conclusion for a specific origin. Study of the subject will reveal differences of opinion and theology. However, many scholars have accepted the story I described as the earliest belief among the Arabic tribes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmirarchi (talk • contribs)

Mmirarch, I responded to your note at Talk:Mormonism. -Visorstuff 21:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Molars

Best wishes to your molars and to their eventual recovery.

Thanks for your efforts on "the page". It's frustrating dealing with twits, but at least you are given the consolation that eventually the twit might actually develop in WP and end up agreeing with you on the issues he used to be a twit about. -SESmith 09:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI

"The doctrine of the church comes first rather than nondoctrinal statements by individuals."

This statement violates WP:COI. POV push somewhere else. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the topic? You have an axe to grind and seek to distort the topic to meet an agenda. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mormon teachings about extraterrestrial life

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mormon teachings about extraterrestrial life, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mormon teachings about extraterrestrial life. Thank you. -SESmith 23:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of articles from categories under deletion discussion

Hi Storm Rider. Per my comments at the Mormon mythology CfD nomination, it's not appropriate to go about removing all the articles from a cat under deletion consideration before the outcome is reached. It's nigh-on impossible for others to assess how that category was being used, short of tracking through the edit histories of the involved parties. Already at least one of the discussion participants has been misled into thinking the category was unused.

See also the second para at the main WP:CFD page (Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision. )

It would be appreciated if you went back and re-added those two cats you've nominated for deletion to all the articles which had them. Allow the discussion to take place, and once an outcome has been reached, then the cats will be removed (if that is the consensus result). Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Done; I started out just to delete its application and only afterwards realized that the two categories needed to be deleted because of their POV motivation on behalf of Merkey. Something really should be done about him; he has been given ample tutoring on how to be a neutral editor, but he obviously refuses to learn or seek to be a positive influence on Wikipedia. It is time we begin to realize that editing is a privilege and not a right. This is one editor we do not need. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Storm Rider- no problem, can quite understand that it became apparent to you after the fact the entire cat was suitable for deletion nomination. Thanks for taking the trouble to go back and restore those entries.

While I too think it's reasonable (based on the creator's associated comments) to question the POV-intention behind creating those cats, I don't agree that using the term mythology necessarily implies a POV that the cat's contents are false and fictitious, for reasons I've explained further at the CfD discussion. However, looking around there don't seem to be all that many articles which could be placed in the nominated cat —under the term's NPOV usage, which is established by similar cats—, and given there's already a broader cat to cover those that could be, it's by no means a necessary categorisation. Hope you will understand that my lukewarm countering to the deletion proposal is not in any way an endorsement of tagging LDS articles with 'negative' categories- it's just that in the wider scheme of things I recognise a valid and neutral usage of the term mythology, even if the category's creator may not have intended it to be so. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you and I have the same understanding of the term mythology; however, usage on Wikipedia is what guides my position. In truth, all religion is rightly put under the category mythology, but that is not how the term is used for other Christian churches on Wikipedia. I can support the cause, but if it is to be enforced then we should start with the largest Christian churches and after succeeding move to the smallest. In this situation, it is obvious that the editor is attempting to implement his POV. Thanks again. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the only fitting NPOV term is "religion". Let's not start a mother of all WP category wars, please. --Friendly Neighbour 15:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

FOFL, exellent comment! I could just see how the community would react to such a position. Langugage is only as good as the definitions we put into words. Mythology is simply far too associated with fairy tales for it to be comfortably used for religion. However, I do understand CJLL point, but think it is naive. Adherents of Christianity, Islam, and most other religions would not tolerate the term to be applied to their respective religions and once that point is understood it is impossible to logically hold th position that it is appropriate for the LDS church or any other group that is not in a majority. My intention was not to propose the action, but used to prod a deduction. You still made me laugh; thanks! --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cfd

No one likes to see that which they may hold dear labelled "mythology" which in most religious communities is indeed used to equate to fiction, falsehood, unworthy of belief, and error. However, even most religious leaders would have to concede that there are things (be they stories, relics, people, places, whatever) that have no place in canon but are worthy of some deference or respect. For example, I don't know much about LDS beliefs (I was raised pretty-strongly Catholic, which at WP is always "Roman Catholic" because of other groups who call themselves Catholics but owe no allegiance to Rome; which is another matter that could irk the RC faithful because "Catholic" means all encompassing, but such is life). LDS is a Christian denomination, and therefore must have much in common belief-wise with Roman Catholicism. I also suppose there are important differences. It also seems to me that religions have 3 ways of dealing with beliefs: (a) they are canon (i.e., you must believe this way, its part of the religion), (b) they are error (i.e., you must not believe that way it is antithetical to the religion), and (c) neither (a) nor (b).

For example, in Roman Catholicism, Mary was (i) Immaculate Conception (born without original sin), (ii)perpetually a virgin (so the translations of the Bible, like KJV that contain references to "brothers of Jesus" are error), and (iii) assumed bodily and soul into heaven (The Assumption). The first and third are not in the Bible; so other Christians diverge on the points. Whether the second is in the Bible is the subject of linguistic debate - fair to say that the RC Church falls on one side, the Anglicans certainly on the other, and everyone else picks sides. So perhaps the LDS view of Mary may not require nor condemn these canon of the RCC, they may be viewed as pious fiction or "Roman Catholic mythology" (shared by some other Christians so the name isn't quite so limited). I wouldn't have a problem throwing various lives of saints for which there is little record, of Roman Catholic-specific doctrines like Papal Infalibility (presumably rejected by all other Christian denominations) into such a category.

Numerous other differences are evident, such as the RCC's (recent) interpretation the commandment "Thou shall not kill" as a reason to oppose capital punishment, despite having quite a blood-stained history with the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch trials, the 30-years war, etc.

For example, your comments about the Holy Grail seem almost the same to me as a non-LDS person as those that could be made about the Golden Plates - both important relics whose location is not really known. Similary is Joseph Smith's use of Urim and Thummim canon, or more along the lines of pious fiction (lives and miracles of saints, etc.). I notice that there is a Category:Latter Day Saint doctrines, beliefs, and practices which has no parallel that I could find for any other religion. Just a rambling response to your message to me. Carlossuarez46 00:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

For LDS the concept of the Immaculate Conception is the belief of RCC and I would reject the label mythology regardless of prefix (Christian, RCC or otherwise). It is not the place of other denominations, churches, etc. to define the mythology of another church or belief system. However, some of the tales that we both hear about the Magi or the archangels may be appropriate for the label simply because they have no basis in scripture or any firm degree from a religious council of any religion. We have lore or a mythology, but belief in these stories fall outside of doctrine.

I am not sure that I understand your point about the Holy Grail; I am not aware of that being a doctrine of the RCC. The LDS church and the RCC hold it as legend, lore, or Christian mythology. On the other hand, LDS do not consider the Gold Plates, Urim and Thummim, or First Vision as mythology, legend, or lore; they are all doctrinal. They hold an equal place in LDS beliefs as does the Immaculate Conception does in the RCC. There may be some very liberal LDS who consider these stories or mythology, but it would be considered highly irregular. For us, the Gold Plates was the parent document from which Joseph Smith translated through the power of God, the Urim and Thummim, what we recognize today as the Book of Mormon. Their presence is believed to have been returned to God. This is more akin to believing that the Bible today is the word of God, traslated from the original texts; though we know that th original texts do not exist today.

Everything that Merkey, the editor who created the two categories in the CfD, labeled as Mormon mythology are actually Mormon doctrine and belief. They are not mythology, but religion. Carlos, I believe we are supportive of the same principles or concepts. There may be a lack of understanding of some of the beliefs of the LDS faith, but once understood I think we would both label the same thing as mythology and others as religious doctrine or beliefs. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 11:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with you

I ask this as a personal challenge. You insult my race here on a website for putting up factual information with this racist, really really racist garbage. You accuse me of hipocracy. No No no No NOOOO. I challenge you. I call you a racist and a hypocrite and I say you are just plain wrong. Not only are you wrong but you are a lier that has willfully given false testemony for the sole purpose of trying to hurt poeple that ask legitimate questions. You are sick. You are a monster. I challenge you to say that I am wrong. You go and read what you wrote then even try to say that I am wrong. So, just in case you didn't know or were refusing to admit it to yourself, you are a bonafide racist. That is that last thing I should ever have to say to you as I am sure I will not be meeting your kind in the here after.--Billiot 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)--Billiot 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)--Billiot 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You must be right. I and everyone else in the world is Racist while the Native American people are pure and holy. This kind of drivel is intellectually repugnant. Of course I don't think Native Amercans were the "first" settlers of this continent. There is no archeological evidence of such a thing. No, I will not kowtow to such silliness nor agree with the noble savage syndrome so prevalent in our society. The various cultures of Native Americans ran from blood thirsty to peaceful...just like every other culture upon the earth. They are no better nor worse than anyone else's, particularly that of those dreaded Western Europeans you want to demonize. If it makes you feel better to take your frustrations out on me, please go ahead. It is better directed at me than other editors here on Wikipedia. However, I would caution you to limit these little diatribes to me because they violate all our standards. Just in closing, I could not care any less what another human thinks of my salvation or the hereafter, I firmly believe that is solely an issue between me and God. I hope your day gets better. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you tone down these off-topic debates? Also, if you do engage in these type of debates can you please keep them a bit more civil? Giving Billiot links to the related articles might have helped to diffuse the situation. Just an FYI for next time. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

J, I appreciate your counsel, thank you; however, I think this editor has an axe to grind. As I said above, I don't really care if he wants to direct his pathetic little personal attacks against me, but I will not tolerate him focusing it on any other editors.

I stand behind edit history. It shows a clear effort to improve Wikipedia and it also shows that when there is someone with an axe to grind I react aggressively, sometimes too aggressively.

When an individual attempts to pass off as factual history that is clearly without merit, i.e. the Noble Savage, I will state it clearly that it is unacceptable. I did so above. Billot has accused me of being racist; which is incorrect. If I have a problem it is being forced to tolerate editors who have nothing better to do than seek to be offended where none was intended. Move on, this editor is a waste of my time and that of everyone else on Wikipedia. Trolls need to be starved of the attention and contention they so obviously crave. Curious, did you ever hear of labeling someone a troll as being a racist comment? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Thanks...

Hey Mp, I reversed some of your edits to the article mentioned above. We have to remember that the Latter Day Saint movement is much larger than the LDS church. In reality I think most articles should be renamed Criticism of the LDS church or at least make it clear that it is the LDS church's doctrine or beliefs that will be the focus of the article(s). However, when we discuss Mormonism, we have to be careful not to make the article too "centric" on the LDS church. Does that make sense? Btw, thanks for your work as an editor. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally. No problem. I'm confused though about why Latter Day Saint is considered the proper terminology versus Latter-day Saint. Can you bring me up to speed on that? I probably missed the discussion. Thanks!Mpschmitt1 10:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

First Vision

John, this may not be the best of times for you to continue to revert on the First Vision article. Give it a rest and limit your edits to the discussiong page and I will again make a request that all major editing stop. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be pleased (and surprised) if you could get the other folks to leave my version up for a few days unedited. In any case, I appreciate the thought.--John Foxe 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts of Visorstuff to resolve the situation at First Vision. I now understand that he was hampered by his past involvement in this article and with John Foxe. No one is editing the article right now, but I believe that John Foxe's comments on the talk page demonstrate that he either cannot understand or refuses to comply with the WP:NPOV policy. I'm trying to gain a consensus on his inappropriate behavior, and I invite you, as a past contributor to this article, to add your comments to this discussion. If you think that my behavior also warrants criticism, I invite that as well. I will be posting this invitation on several other user talk pages, but with your past history on this article you might be aware of other editors who have walked away. Please feel free to let them know what is going on and invite their input at Talk:First_Vision#Time_for_action. 74s181 13:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RFM - First Vision

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/First Vision, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Adminship

Hey don't sweat it. I'm not going to carry a grudge against the people who vote 'Oppose'. I know I haven't been an active Wikipedia for a super long time, only a few months, so I expected there to be some concern there. If I am not granted adminship this time around, I will probably RFA again in September. Whenever I become an admin, I won't be suddenly jumping around pushing all kinds of new buttons. I will ease myself into the position. There's no reason why a guy who invests over 2000 edits (without the use of any tools like Twinkle or VandalProof) would suddenly go berserk and start causing chaos. And I won't. Thanks, though, for your insightful comments both on my talk page and on my RFA. Keep up the good work. Useight 04:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How do the LDS determine what is doctrine?

I hope we can have a civil discussion about this, but i'm not convinced we can. However, I'm going to give it a shot anyway.

You and I have bucked heads a bit lately, and it got me thinking. How exactly does an LDS determine what is church doctrine and what is not? I would THINK that a sermon by Joseph Smith would be accepted as an official statement of doctrine or practice. Apparently it's not. Some of your comments have indicated that you believe that only the Scriptures of the LDS church (http://scriptires.lds.org) qualify as doctrinal statements or guidelines for practice. Yet at the same time, it appears that the church does teach things that at best are only hinted at in the scriptures. An example of this would be the idea of a Heavenly Mother. THere's a song in the church hymnal about it, Hymn 292 , and several articles at the church website that refer to it, for example Daughters of God from the Nov 1991 Ensign by President Hinkley. There's no references to this idea anywhere in the scriptures that i'm aware of, except perhaps in a very vague way. (And no, I don't plan on getting into the flap i've heard about surrounding this issue. I just want to use it as an example of a belief that is far from being clearly stated in the scriptures).

I've also always been given the impression the church also promotes itself as having prophetic leaders who can speak by inspiration, which solves the problem of people having wildly different views of the Bible because of its lack of clarity on certain things.

So, back to the origional question. How do you determine LDS doctrine? from the LDS Scriptures? From the public statements of the church's prophets? Some of both? Pick and choose the stuff you like from both and ignore the rest? Some other totally different way? Alienburrito 22:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

I am not aware of any time when I was uncivil to you. As an experienced editor I have pointed out Wikipedia policy to you and have warned you when you have violated that policy. For those warnings I have used templates provided for those warnings approved for all editors. Further, I don't think we have had any conflict over doctrine or theology. However, we have had an editorial disagreement on the purpose of articles and what content should be included and what goes beyond a given topic.

What is the diffrence between doctrine and theology? In many religions some draw a fine line between them. I will only speak to my interpretation for our discussion. Gospel doctrine is synonymous with the truths of salvation. It comprises the tenets, teachings, and true theories found in the scriptures; it includes the principles, precepts, and revealed philosophies of pure religion; prophetic dogmas, maxims, and views are embraced within its folds; it is all truth that leads to salvation. Theology is the field of study of a given religion; though it includes issues of salvation, it goes beyond salvation into mysteries, philosophical questions, etc. Often times members of all religions use the terms interchangably; however, that is error. They are not interchangable and address different things. I have even heard and read leaders use the term doctrine inappropriately, when in fact they mean theology and vice-versa.

How does this apply to our conversation? You bring up the concept of Heavenly Mother and cited an LDS Hymn and a talk by Gordon B. Hinkley. It is not found in scripture and has no bearing on salvation. Whether an individual believes that a Heavenly Mother exists means nothing to their salvation. It has absolutely no value to exaltation or being saved, or any other term in the lexicon of salavtion. However, it would be appropriate to state that it is most certainly part of LDS theology. LDS believe, as the hymn written by Eliza R. Snow states, "Truth is reason; truth eternal / Tells me I’ve a mother there" (Hymns, 1985, no. 292.). To LDS it is logical for us. We believe that both man and woman are created in the image and likeness of our God. These topics are interesting, but as I stated above, they have nothing to do with salvation. Another way to think about it would be believing in it or disbelieving in it will not damn you or save you.

Sermons to me are not doctrinal unless they have been entered into canon. Sermons are generally fall into the area of theology. For example, the King Follet discourse that you want to cite, is a talk given at a funeral. That is practically the sum total of Joseph Smith's teachings on this topic. However, anti-Mormons have had a field day with this single sermon and virtually every one of them cite it ad nauseum. If it was so important it would have been entered into the canon along with all the other revelations given by Joseph Smith. This also is the issue with Snow's often quoted statement, "As man now is God once was, and as God now is man may become." I find this teaching to pose more questions than it answers. I believe the man principle being taught is the concept of eternal progression. The questions are endless, if our Father in Heaven is not the "first" God, then who was? We know that God is eternal without beginning or end. I believe this concept is a mystery that has no explanation. Many will repeat it, but none understand it, grasp it, or comprehend its real meaning.

I think one of the most controversial teachings is the statement that all things taught by insprition over the pulpit in General Conference is truth. The BIG question is what is inspired and what it not? Some leaders will say that it is up to the members to know by the guidance of the Holy Spirit what is true. I believe that, but it provides too wide a door for leaders to go back and say that so and so really was not inspired when he said it, etc. As a LDS, you will find me a bit liberal. To me when a general authority, and specifically the prophet, says "thus saith the Lord God..."; that is when I know they are speaking as a prophet and no longer as a man.

A problem yet to be addressed in the LDS church is when is a general authority speaking as a man and when is he speaking as a prophet. The Roman Catholic church addressed these issues in Vatican II more clearly after choking on it for centuries. The best we have been able to do, and in some respect it demonstrates the faith and strong belief in the Holy Spirit, is the counsel that each of us must follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit first and foremost.

In closing, the church does teach that intrepretation of scripture is guided first by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, seond, by all scripture: Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price,and third, by the guidance of prophetic clarification. I hope this helps to clarify a few points of my beliefs and motivations for my statements. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR rule violition

While I appreciate your concern, you know that I have been discussing everything on the talk page, and that I am well aware of the 3RR. Feel free to leave me comments about your concerns, but please don't paste templates on my talk page when you know I already know the information they contain. The Jade Knight 01:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the warning. I just don't like it when you use useless templates. I prefer words that come from you, not the template, particularly when you know that I already know what's in the template. The Jade Knight 03:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and haven't taken offence. The Jade Knight 04:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hmm.. now I feel embarassed. I was not really looking for an award... I was joking around while trying to also make a point. But thanks!

I actually would appreciate thoughts from everyone... am I being silly in my position? Maybe I am and do not know it. I feel that I am so obviously right... that it is self evident. But maybe I just need to stop drinking the bong water and get over myself. --Blue Tie 06:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/First Vision. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC).

John Foxe and 3RR violation

Anyone who has never been warned on 3RR needs to be warned before their last revert. You only warned him after he had made his last edit, so that didn't count as a fair warning. If he had been warned in the past for 3RR the warning would not have been necessary this time.

However I also noticed that he did not revert 4 times inside 24 hours. The later edits he made were after the 24 hour period started from the first revert.

I would also suggest you not make comments like "with your complicit participation" in the future. You filed a bad report that did not include the original version reverted to and didn't include 4 reverts in 24 hours. The administrator concurred - he would not have ignored a ban just on my opinion if I was wrong. The best thing to do is be more careful next time and make a better point. You can also ask an admin for help if a user is disruptive. But don't blame a third-party for pointing out flaws in a report you make, especially when they are crucial mistakes. John Smith's 18:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to covering up anything. The points I made to you were pretty much what I said on the 3RR report. Thanks, I didn't see that specific report - I made a mistake there. But I still believe I was correct in saying that he did not make 4 reversions within 24 hours. You are right to say a user does not have to make 4 reverts in 24 hours to warrant a block, but that is more usually where someone tries to dance around the 24 hour period. Thanks for your concern, but I can't do anything to change the failed status of the report. John Smith's 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration - First Vision

I have submitted a request for arbitration with the Arbitration Committee. You are listed as a party. The arbitration process requires that all parties listed in an arbitration request must be notified. You have an opportunity to comment on the request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration. 74s181 02:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists should be converted into categories

I thought I would ask you if there is a policy or guideline that states lists should be deleted in favor of categorizing their contents? Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, a guideline, seems to state that lists, categories and series boxes are to be used in synergy with eachother. It says nothing about deleting one in favor of the other. Since you advanced this argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rhythm guitarists, and since policy at WP:Deletion#Deletion_discussion states "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants should explain their opinion and refer to policy", I'm requesting information about the policy or guideline you derived this understanding from. Thank you very much. (Mind meal 03:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

MMM

Thanks for your comments. The article is so far out of control -- in the hands of hobbyists (apparently Mormons?) -- that I do not think it can be recovered. About a month ago, I started complaining about the cruft and I said then that in my experience it would only get worse and no one would care. I was told at that time to have patience ... it would get better. But not a day goes by that it does not actually get worse. And everything I say falls on deaf ears. Nothing seems to work.. not complaint, not logic, not satire, ... nothing. In the last couple of days since my rant, the article has grown another 3%. At this rate, it will double in size again in another month and a half. And its all cruft. Its awful. I have not edit warred and will not do so, but the article sucks so bad now that it is abysmal. It is very sad to me that wikipedia is so abused. I may yet try some other approaches to get the editors to become reasonable, but when irrational people take over there is almost no remedy on wikipedia. But thanks for your support. And I am glad you saw the humor in my post!--Blue Tie 01:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Patience please, Blue Tie -- we "Mormon hobbyists" do run off at the mouth a little, but tight edits at the end of the process will reduce the fat and the "cruft" (I do hate that term). And, as a editor cheering from the bleachers, I have appreciated your input. And, how about helping decide what MMM material should be shifted over to Utah War? I hope to develop a new outline on that article soon. Sorry to co-opt your page, Storm. WBardwin 23:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you should hate the term "Cruft". I use it specifically when I hate the stuff that has been put in -- not on the basis of whether I have an emotional reaction to the content but whether I think it is distracting to the article. So when you hate the term, you have the reaction to it that I am trying for. I think it would be interesting to look at the Mormon War stuff -- where, incidentally, I would (I suspect) be more tolerant of things that I might consider cruft on the MMM page. Not sure why exactly but I suspect thats how I would be. (Apologies to Storm also)--Blue Tie 01:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for the comment about patience. I am somewhat impatient and I am pompous, prideful or full of myself too much. It is a flaw and I am not sure it is getting better with age. So I need to come to earth sometimes. --Blue Tie 01:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Hi - we have a persistant POV anon. I've reverted him twice for the same "labeling". If you're online, would you take the next shift? Thanks. WBardwin 23:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. WBardwin 00:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't "warn" people in general, as I have no authority here. If I think the editor has potential, and can come to understand the NPOV perspective, I usually contact them and encourage them to make an effort. This one doesn't strike me as too flexible. Thanks again. WBardwin 00:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a sock. The edits seem really unsubtle; they're not even prose. I could see elaborating on Smith's mysticism a bit more. That probably wouldn't be undue weight because it's an often-studied theme, but the user won't get anywhere without using the talk page. It's impossible to know what they want. Cool Hand Luke 07:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Some assistance

Hey now! I hope you're well, as I haven't interacted with you in some time. I was wondering if you might be interested in helping us out over at early Christianity. We could use further assistance cleaning up the article (lots of original research and POV), paring down the poorly written and inappropriate material and expanding the rest with additional sources. Would you be up for pitching in? Thanks!! Vassyana 01:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Warnings

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you.

Your religious beliefs appear to be clouding your judgement. Be objective about what certain religions teach. Alienburrito 07:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

This is a joke right? You a newbie that has yet to learn our core principles as demonstrated by your edits, are going to go around correcting others because your opinion is not equated to truth? You might want to check out ownership of articles; as in no one owns an article, which would include you. You might also want to check out what Wikipeida is not so that you understand that this is not a place for your personal pet issues, soapbox, or a personal blog. It is an encyclopedia. What is probably the most humerous is your silly statement about ojectivity; you are the editor who is insisting on telling everyone else what LDS believe and ignore all references and quotes that conflict with what you say LDS believe. Please obsevrve your own advice first; it is highly applicable. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a joke stormrider. You've inserted blatant Point of View material into articles, and blatantly removed well sourced statements. Alienburrito 09:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

You have an interesting POV; I view your edits as highly POV, and you purposely, blatantly misrepresent LDS doctrine. More importantly, the reason for your diatribe is my statements on a discussion page because of your proposed rewrite to the article; please review relevant Wikipedia policy about assuming good faith. I have not edited the article in question, yet. I have raised questions about the incorrect statements and misrepresentations of your edits. This is part of the collaborative process on Wikipedia, which I have been attempting to get you to realize. Wikipeida is not a personal blog site. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)