User talk:74s181

Welcome!

Hello, 74s181, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Alai 21:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of topics I'm intersted in: User:74s181/sandbox/list

List of useful tags Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes#For_inline_article_placement

74181 page I'm working on User:74s181/sandbox/74181

The actual 74181 page 74181 and redirects 74S181 '181

RfC samples User_talk:74s181/RfC

A useful counter [1]

Moroni

Thanks for catching the years - don't know how I missed that. Trödel|talk 03:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hint

You might want to move your about me section to your user page, not your user talk page. Your user talk page is generally a place for other users to leave you messages, while your user page is where you put whatever you like. Avochelm 12:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, still learning. 74s181 13:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello from a flying Brookie

Brookie from England here - passing through and saying HI! Brookie: A collector of little brown things 15:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject LDS

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

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

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

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

Thanks for all that you do -Trevdna 15:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your question

I wish that you could see that your question is irrelevant to me, and I believe, only peripherally relevant to the article. I'll compare it to two men with maps. One of them by following his map ends up in Moscow, Idaho. The other ends up in Moscow, Russia. "Who are these crazy people", says the first man, "who say that I am not in Moscow?". "Who are these people", says the second man, "who say that Moscow is in Idaho?". But I'm afraid that you'll take me too literally, even in this. So, I need a break. As a courtesy, please don't ask me questions on the talk page of the article, because they won't be answered. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to let you know, it's been really good having you and Storm Rider 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 Storm Rider's page... Keep it up!Mpschmitt1 02:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the good faith

I just wanted to say thank you for your good faith and attitude on the Mormonism and Christianity page. I look forward to continuing to work with you on that page. Vassyana 19:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Revelation

Interesting edit on M&C article today. My understanding is revelation is open to all; however, a prophet is one who receives revelation and, by authority, leads and guides the people. The authority, the priesthood, empowers one to preside over the saints. However, all can receive the same truths and understandings. For example, Nephit was not the prophet when he was also given Lehi's vision. It gave him understanding, but did not entitle him to lead the people. I don't know if I have explained myself properly, but this concept does seem to be often misunderstood within the church.

Btw, I do feel that most of our conversations on M&C are saying the same thing, but we are expressing our positions with different terms...a issue of semantics and not principles. Keep up the good work. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

professional clergy

Just spotted your question to me on the M&C talk page: 'BTW, Wesley, do mainstream Christians see the LDS lack of professional clergy as a significant doctrinal distinction? 74s181 14:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)' To answer, I don't know of any group that treats the issue of paid clergy as a doctrinal distinction. It certainly pales in comparison to issues like the nature of God, the nature of our own salvation and so forth. In Orthodox Christianity, and also in Roman Catholicism I think, there's a very clear line between questions of dogma and questions of 'theological opinion' or best practice. Rules regarding paid clergy, specifics about how best to fast, and many others are I'm sure examples of the latter category. Another example: in Orthodoxy, there's a good deal of lattitude for people to be pacifists, or not be pacifists. Perhaps some of the differences between Mormons and others are not just differences regarding specific issues, but which issues are 'dogma' and which are open to varying opinion. Wesley 17:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Baptism for the dead

I don't see anything wrong with the question that you posted on M&C about Baptism for the Dead. That doctrine rang very true when I learned about it as an investigator. IMHO, as long as people realize that the ordinance is an invitation, and that the deceased person is free to accept or reject it, there is less cause for alarm. I think the analogy I gave earlier about an invitation to a family event helps explain the situation: if you have an uncle who probably won't come, do you send them an invitation anyway? If you are talking to a Catholic, I would use the analogy of them offering a mass for me after I've died. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you are not

I have been disappointed with some of the comments from other editors. My comments were not directed at you, but I felt you were being dealt with unfairly. Mark at times seems to relish taking the role of school teacher talking with simple children; I find it unfortunate and not conducive to a productive exchange. It is true that he is absolutely convinced of their "rightness" of his position, but he does so without any acknowledgement that those of other churches can be just as convinced, if not more so of the truth.

I have felt at times that you take the role of missionary, but I have also felt that was your personal zeal for the truth of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. For me, I am careful not to take that position on Wikipedia. It is acceptable to discuss, share, and document what LDS believe here, but it is not the proper format to "teach". Those types of conversations are of a personal nature and should be handled elsewhere. Does that make sense to you?

My comments directed at you were to offer encouragement and to ensure that you don't give up. Also, it was to counsel you to focus more on the article and not the discussion page. I think all of us, me probably more than others, have expended great effort on the discussion page and forgotten the purpose is to improve the article itself. Ever faithful. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, what I relish is teaching what I've been taught: but I am not teaching. Since I've been asked to talk about my views, this is what I talk about, but I don't adopt the position of a teacher. No proper teacher would allow his students to substitute something else for what is taught, or tolerate disrespect to the speaker. As a rule, I write briefly, and hopefully engagingly. If you want documentation to support what I say, I can supply this as well. But that I don't presume to teach would seem to be obvious to me. And even if you ask me to teach you, I will teach you only what I have been taught.

You are interfering with conversations that you have no interest in, and make your appearance only to declare your lack of interest. Stop focusing on me. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

74s181, while I'm letting off steam it is also obviously untrue what he said, that I do not think that you are as convinced of your beliefs as I am of mine. This contradicts what I have said emphatically and repeatedly, not only for these months but even for years. 74, you may assuredly believe me, and not Storm Rider about me, that I believe you are sincere. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I had decided that I was going to try to avoid interacting with you because I seem to be unable to understand where your 'third rail' is, and I don't want to stir up more anger. However, you've come here, I guess that means you want to talk to me, so here goes. 74s181 19:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I really have learned some things from you, both about what you believe and about my own beliefs, and I thank you for that. My faith and knowledge have grown substantially as a result of our interactions. I have also learned a little bit about how to disagree in an agreeable way, but apparently not enough. 74s181 19:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I presume to teach you, is Wikipedia: what works, and what doesn't work, and how to work. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I owe you an apology. You said you believed I was sincere, please believe me now, I did not intend the bring up 'the question', it was forefront in my mind as I put together my posting under 'Not a different Jesus', and I was trying hard to structure what I was doing so that it wouldn't be 'the question'. 74s181 19:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect I see that you are right, any attempt by me (or probably any other LDS) to find commonality in our beliefs on Jesus Christ really is 'the question', so I apologize, I'll try not to do that again. 74s181 19:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand and sympathize and you do not need to apologize. Wikipedia is an acquired but natural skill. It will not long evade your obvious intelligence and good will, and you already have done excellent work which shows your progress. Please don't be discouraged. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And especially, I hope you don't stop trying to clarify LDS beliefs. This is exactly what I want you to do - in the context of a neutral comparison. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I love the metaphor of a "third rail". It is perfect. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Parables and such

74s181, Storm Rider has expressed concern that the use of parables, metaphors and the like is not only unhelpful to you, but also insulting. As you recall, you also expressed this concern. And as I hope you recall, I apologized to you at the time that on more than one occasion you have complained of feeling put down - beginning all the way back in February with the "maps" parable. As a matter of fact, however, I was so frustrated at that time that my apology couldn't have been understood. I am sorry that my efforts to explain failed, and as a result, you once again felt insulted. And, I am sorry that I gave into my frustration, so that I prevented myself from seeing how to sympathize.

Let me explain in plain prose what I'm trying to do - although it is far from the first time that I've done this, these are not easy things to understand. They are especially difficult for someone like yourself, who believes firmly in what you profess and desire others to agree with you in what you have accepted as the truth.

Wikipedia is a strange place. Here, we decide nothing, we argue the truth of nothing, we pretend that there exists a place in the world where truth does not matter. It troubled me very much, thinking about a place existing where truth - even in pretense - does not exist. It sounds like the chaos of hell to me.

But then it occurred to me, years ago, that what happens here actually has very much to do with the real world - only, it is not the struggle itself. The struggle itself concerns what we are reporting in these pages. And part of the reason that struggle goes so badly is, we blur and distort one another's beliefs by interpreting them as though they were continuous with our own. In short, we misunderstand.

Here, the struggle goes on except ruling out the things that cause misunderstanding. No personal attacks. A pretended neutrality - where, for the sake of the argument, you are allowed to explain your beliefs fully and I am required to behave as though they are true. I am not allowed to reject them, just because they are lies and distortions; and instead I must assist in making your views more completely acceptable by assisting you to eliminate my misunderstandings of them.

What we have here is pretend, but it is nevertheless part of the real world: nothing exists, except what is real and what is pretended to be real. Here, we are acknowledging the existence of the pretend. In order to preserve the pretense, we must obtain rules that apply to the experiment. And why would we do this? There is only one reason why: to assist in our struggle in the real world, except this time better equipped with knowledge of what the other side would say if we didn't have the power to drown out what they mean by what they say. In fact, we will help them to say it better than they could have said it without our help, because we will assist them in discovering all the things that cause us to misunderstand them.

So, what I have been struggling to help you with - all those times that you have felt put down - is to show you how necessary it is to allow me to tell you what I mean. You cannot understand me, otherwise, because you do not have in common with me the beliefs that guide my thoughts. This has nothing to do with lack of intelligence. It has to do with the strange rules under which we are attempting to operate. Since February, I have been trying to explain the same thing, over and over. When I react harshly, it is because you are attempting to bring the wrong kind of reality into this context. You are misunderstanding the rules of the place. And when you do this, you are obfuscating my ability to explain to you what I mean. It's at that point that I try to show you why you cannot succeed here, if you operate according to those rules. When you misunderstand the rules of Pretended Neutrality, you force misunderstanding onto what I am trying to say.

I am not lecturing and bullying you about your beliefs, or your ability to explain your beliefs - on the contrary, I welcome you to do that! I am lecturing and bullying you about your misunderstandings of Wikipedia. If at any time I've slipped, and gotten these turned around, then I owe you an apology. Otherwise, I am only trying to explain with perfect clarity, why you need to ask me to tell you and to demonstrate for you what I believe - you cannot invent your own mutually acceptable version of my beliefs, or blend my beliefs with your own. When you do that, you not only violate the rules of Wikipedia, you violate the rules of the real world.

Have I made myself plain? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have made yourself plain, at least not plain enough for me. I can't be sure about what you meant to do with this posting. More on that in a minute.

You've talked about the philosophy behind wikipedia. I think I understand what wikipedia is about and what the rules are, and it seems like you are saying the same thing in a roundabout way. I am going to explain what I think, and if you agree with my description, then maybe we have communicated. If I have misunderstood, then please forgive me.

Everytime you say that "you are saying the same thing in a roundabout way" you stop listening to me, and you substitute your own meaning for what I have told you plainly, directly, and clearly. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never thought that Wikipedia was about Truth, that is, Truth with a capital T (and that rhymes with P and that stands for Pool<g>). Wikipedia is not about objective reality, it is about what people believe. We don't make assertions about reality, only about what people believe about reality, this is the NPOV rule. Even then, we can never know what people really believe, we can only know what they or their representatives say they believe, this is the citation rule.

We can say "group X believes Y because expert Q said so in publication R". Even when it comes to so-called historical 'facts', these facts are still somebody's opinion.

For example, I could say that many Latter-day Saints believe that the Christian community of Joseph Smith's time was very much in the same state and responded to Joseph Smith in the same way as the Jewish community of Jesus Christ's time responded to Him. This may be true, in fact, I believe it is true, I have heard many LDS discuss this. However, unless I can find something in print or on a 'real' website, not someone's personal website, I can't introduce these 'facts' into the article, this is the Original Research rule.

I can, however, do any of the above on a talk page. What I can't do on a talk page or anywhere else on wikipedia is engage in a personal attack. Saying "statement X is bad because of Y" is not a personal attack, saying "you're an idiot" is. I've tried not to do this, I was concerned that the scriptural excerpts that I posted with the 'crack in the sidewalk' parable might be interpreted as a personal attack, but I decided that I was displaying a couple of anonymous shoes, and if someone thought that one or both fit them, well, maybe they did. (BTW, if have any questions about the 'crack in the sidewalk' parable or the scripture references I gave along with it I'd love to explain them to you, just let me know)

Now I'm going to get a little more personal. You have made it very clear that I should not attempt to describe MC opinion in the M&C or any other article. I have tried to adhere to that. Now it seems like you are saying I can't even do this on the talk page, I can't even do it in the form of a question. How can we reach understanding or consensus if I can't repeat back to you in my own words what I think I have heard you state as your belief?

We cannot reach consensus concerning our understandings. Such a consensus would be NEITHER Mormonism nor Christianity. Stop trying to reach that kind of consensus. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You see, this is the 'third rail' that I'm afraid of. You said 'I love the metaphor of a "third rail". It is perfect.' But do you understand what I meant? There is the third rail, lying there with the other two. It looks innocent enough. But if you make a mistake and touch it instead of one of the others then you will die. Why? Because that innocent looking rail, that rail that looks so much like the others, carries a very high voltage, with a huge potential for current flow. It isn't touching the rail that kills you, it is the voltage that the rail carries. But, with the flick of a switch, that rail can become just as harmless as the other two. So, I'm going to be a bit critical here. You've made it clear that you are a Christian, that you try to live according to the values that Jesus Christ taught. I only remember one thing that really got Jesus angry. I don't recall coming into your church and setting up a Mormon information table so I think you need to turn the juice down a bit. Just my opinion.

The interesting thing is that, although you are the author of the "third rail" metaphor, I understand its meaning in terms of Wikipedia, and you do not. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Another thing. You said "Storm Rider has expressed concern that the use of parables, metaphors and the like is not only unhelpful to you, but also insulting". I don't think this is what he said, and it is not how I feel. I like the use of parables and metaphors, this is not insulting. What is insulting is handing me a Rubik's cube with two of the color labels swapped. How, exactly, is responding with a parable that you know I won't understand supposed to help me learn anything, except maybe humility? Maybe that is what you think I need to learn? Ok, I do, but please, just say so.

74s181, I have "just said so" repeatedly, again and again. What I am doing now is "just saying so". The parable is about the necessity of asking, and the evil of argument (pushing POV) — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Last thing. You said "...you do not need to apologize". Trust me on this, I do. I hoped that you would accept my apology. You didn't. You then posted 'Parables and such' which starts off sounding a bit like you were apologizing, but ends up saying that what happened was my fault. Ok, I already know that.

LDS have been taught that we should not wait for those who have offended us to ask for forgiveness, we should forgive them. Ok, so I'll say it. I felt offended. What you did with the parable that I wasn't supposed to understand made me think that you were not sincere. I forgive you, and ask that you please try to avoid doing this in the future.

Now I'll try again. I am sorry that I did something that is clearly very offensive to you. I did not mean to do it, I tried to avoid doing it, but in retrospect I see that I did exactly the thing that I was trying not to do. I will try very hard not to do so again. Will you please accept my apology? 74s181 14:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you write less, I can respond to one question at a time.

You ask me to accept your apology - but you have not done anything except misunderstand the rules of "Neutral editing". I certainly accept your frustration - I feel your frustration in myself, how can I more nearly appreciate it than that? For the same reason I accept your confusion over how to do what I'm asking you to do - I experience your confusion myself, as I try to help you to understand. I accept what you are saying, it's just that I don't perceive these things as offenses but rather, reasons to try to help you. I accept that you are sincere, and this is the reason I talk to you as boldly and candidly as I do - even though I know that if I fail again to get across what I am saying about how Wikipedia works, you're going to be offended once again. I am not pushing your apology away, I am saying that you don't need to apologize, because I already symphathize.

I never said that you weren't supposed to understand the parable. I said that you won't know whether you understand it, unless you already know what it means. But yet, you don't ask me what I mean by the parable. How then are you going to interpret it? The point, you see, is not the parable but the asking.

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had asked before, but maybe I haven't. So I am asking now. What do you mean by the parable of the wheelbarrows? I am pretty sure that the contractor is The Lord, that the two workers represent members of MC and LDS, maybe the wheelbarrows are the church institutions, maybe the dirt is souls that we are laboring to bring to salvation. I don't get the significance of the single shovel unless it means that there is only one true gospel, I don't get the argument, the complaint to the contractor or the contractor's rebuke. That is, these elements don't seem to fit with what I think I understand about the other elements. 74s181 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Because you have asked, I will gladly tell you the meaning of the shovel. The shovel is the share that we have in Christ's sufferings, our participation with him in the likeness of his death. Christ died for us while we were yet enemies. To have any share in one another, because we are naturally enemies, we must believe into the one name. He receives us into his name while we are still sinners, and while we do not understand. But if you misunderstand, you will not accept unity with us in this name, and the work that we have from him cannot be your work. But you have your own understanding of the meaning of this name, and this misunderstanding prevents you from accepting any share that we have in his life. You have no share with us in bearing witness to the Christ, because you are under the assumption that Joseph Smith added to the revelation of Jesus. So, the LDS is the man in the parable who says, "I have no share in your testimony to Christ, all I have is a testimony to Christ". This is how we see ourselves, and you, from the perspective of our beliefs.

Obviously, you could never have discovered the meaning of the parable without asking. The same is true of the explanation of the parable. It works the other way around, as well. There are things I do not understand, that mystify me. I need your help explaining them, to clear up the misunderstandings. The progress we make in clearing up misunderstandings, by asking one another for explanations, can be recorded in the article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, you said that I have 'misunderstand the rules of "Neutral editing".' Are you saying that what I said above about my understanding of NPOV, citations, original research, and personal attacks don't match your understanding of these core wikidoctrines? Am I wrong in all? In a specific one? Have I left out some other core value? Or are you saying that my recent behavior (specifically, in the 'different Jesus' posting) isn't in compliance? I know that my past behavior has been wrong at times. 74s181 17:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pointing out, in as many ways as I can think of, that neutrality means letting the other guy tell his own story, and assisting him to clarify his own meaning. Neutrality is NOT trying to find some middle ground between the two, where after all they agree in their understanding despite the fact that their understandings contradict one another. You keep wanting to find that non-existent middle ground: That constant effort to find common ground is not neutrality at all, it is POV pushing. If we have common ground, it is not in our understanding. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I can barely grasp anything from your explanation of the shovel, and when I take what little I have gotten out of your explanation and try to apply it to the parable it makes even less sense than it did before. Based on what you are saying I still don't understand why there is only one shovel. And I still don't understand what I am doing wrong on Wikipedia. And it sounds like the third rail is still fully charged so I'm afraid to try to clarify any of this.

My beloved friend, please understand this: the power of the third rail is called "truth". When you ask me to join my form of godlines with your form of godliness, so that I with my beliefs may agree with you, with your beliefs, you are inviting me to agree for the sake of a worthless internet article, that there is no truth and that we will be safe together if we meet there. What happens to both of us then, when the Truth Appears? We would be burned up together. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a great class today on Peter receiving Priesthood keys from Jesus Christ and the significance of these keys, my participation here on Wikipedia and interaction with you is at least partially responsible for that, but after coming home and reading what you've written, re-reading the parable, struggling to understand, and trying to think of some safe way to discuss this with you, well, I'm tired, I'm discouraged, I don't think I will ever understand what you are trying to tell me. I just tried it again. It almost sounds like there is some kind of meaning there somewhere, but it is just out of reach. Joseph Smith didn't add anything, the Lord just said to him, 'Here are a few things they lost along the way'. I believe in Christ, you believe in Christ, therefore, what? Why is it ok for you to tell me that you know that I don't believe what you believe, but it is not ok for me to say, 'I think you just said you believe X and I believe the same thing'? That'll probably make you angry with me again, I don't understand but I'm sorry, just not sorry enough to clean it up.

I'm tired, I'm afraid of the third rail, yes, I'm a little bit angry, I was having such a good day, I was looking forward to finally understanding your parable, but no. 74s181 00:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Incredible, I hit 'show preview and fool that I am, I just read it again and tried to understand it. That makes at least five times. It's still gobbledegook. Ever hear of 'plain and simple'? Joseph Smith was pretty fond of that, I guess that means it is off-limits for MC. I'm going to shut up now before I really get angry and say something even more stupid. 74s181 00:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As hard as it is to do it, 74s181, there is only one way that a comparison of the LDS and the Creed can be written. The MC must ask Mormons to explain themselves. And when they've explained themselves, the MC must ask the LDS to explain the explanation. There is no point in this process at which the MC should say, "I get it now, I'll go write that for you from my perspective". The MC's goal should be to find issues of misunderstanding, and point these out to the LDS so that they can be explained.

Please understand this about the parable. The reason for it is to illustrate for you why your goal in working with me cannot be to understand me. You will never understand me, unless you believe as I believe. I know that this is hard for you to accept, but this is why I've spent so much time trying to help. No matter how much I explain, you will always be in a position of having to ask me for explanations of my explanations - and there is no point at which, without adopting my beliefs, you will discover what I mean. This is the plain fact of the matter. I am not making this up, and I am not trying to annoy you or discourage you - very much to the contrary. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Cookies and milk

However, you CAN understand Wikipedia, even if you cannot understand me. You can understand the rules of Neutrality and civility. It is possible for us to work together in those terms. So, I've let you know that there is a spiritual interpretation of the parable. But this should not be your concern. I've told you that the spiritual meaning of the parable, as far as your part is concerned, is that you may only ask me what I mean, and when I tell you, you still may only ask me what I mean, because it will not make sense to you unless you believe as I do.

Now let me show you the natural interpretation. This is the "plain and simple", cookies and milk nursery-tale intepretation.

• The owner is Wikipedia
• The "boss" is the requirement to edit according to the rules
• The hole is the article that we must fill.
• The first man is any person who comes to the article to contribute his explanations of the Christian faith.
  • The first wheel barrow is the explanation of his Christian faith: his POV
• The second man is any person who comes along later, to help with the article.
  • The second wheel barrow is his different explanation of his Christian faith: his POV
• The shovel is the procedure we must share: we must ask one another regarding our different explanations, and we must accept those explanations without adding our misunderstandings to them.
  • To "fill" is to explain
  • To "empty" is to eliminate misunderstanding

• The first man says to the newcomer, "I'm glad you're here! Tell us what you know about Mormonism and Christianity, I'll tell you what I believe, and you tell me what I get wrong from your point of view".
• The newcomer says (for example), "I don't have anything to say about Mormonism - there's only Christianity, and Mormons aren't Christians. Take my explanation of the Christian faith, and we'll use that to fill the article with content." (or more generally, "I don't have questions, all I have is explanations").
• The first man gets mad, "Why did you come here to write an article about Mormonism and Christianity, then? I have an idea, let me tell you what I think about your "Christianity", and you tell me what I get wrong."
• The second man gets mad and says, "You have no business telling me what I believe. Get rid of your false explanations, and go get verifiable content to fill the article."

Because they cannot get along by telling one another what the other believes, the arbitration committee steps in and both of them get in trouble. This will be their finding:

• Since we've allowed these articles on controversies to exist, the rules of Pretended Neutrality and Real Civility apply here more than ever. You are writing on the topic of how two belief systems compare. If we had banned such articles, and limited you to writing about either Mormonism or Christianity, maybe you would have listened to one another better. The second guy is the main problem. He wants everything to be written from his own point of view. He'll be banned for being argumentative, because although he demanded neutrality he did not operate neutrally or civilly. You are that second man.
• The first guy will get a scolding too. His problem is that he did not teach the second man how to work on controversial Wikipedia articles, by giving questions and accepting explanations. Although he understood how to work on such a controversial article, he didn't demonstrate the procedure - and instead he tried to explain it by scolding and bullying the other editor.
• If this is how it goes, then articles about controversies should be eliminated from Wikipedia.

Do you see now? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense now. I still don't understand the single shovel, and I REALLY don't understand why you waited so long to explain it.

I think you have misunderstood wikipedia policy, see Writing for the "enemy" under WP:NPOVFAQ. However, you have definitely misunderstood me, I do not want to write the MC position in the article, I have never wanted to do this. In order to identify topics of LDS belief that are worth writing about, I need to understand what MC believe and why. You say I can't understand. I agree that I can't develop faith in your mysteries, just as you say that you can't develop faith in mine. But I can understand that there is a mystery, and what the mysterious part is that has to be taken on faith. Once I begin to think I understand, I then repeat back what it is that I think I have understood in my own words, to make sure I have understood correctly. This is called "Seek first to understand, then to be understood", the fifth of the Seven Habits. If I haven't understood correctly, then I hope that someone will correct me, without feeling the need to assume the attitude of a teacher of first grade children.

These things, of course, all take place on the talk page. But we're supposed to be adding to the article, right? Well, I thought that one of the purposes of the talk page was to try to gain consensus on direction in controversial articles. So I have tried to seek a consensus on how what we have discussed on the talk page should be applied to the article, but, ZZZZZZTTT!

You know, the really great thing about this form of communication is that I can type up a really angry response, and then delete it before I click 'save'. I can feel better for having vented, and I can feel even better for exercising self control and not actually posting. I just feel better. Free agency is a wonderful thing, I'm really glad Heavenly Father invented it. BTW, how do you feel? 74s181 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not "wait". Heavens. If anything I was too hasty, so long ago telling you again and again, and you did not understand me. Even now, you do not understand me, because you think I have misunderstood you. Should I explain again? Do not push your point of view. Show me what is important to you, and try to do this without explaining why it is true. This way I can hear your beliefs, without being provoked into attacking them. Follow the model of the top of the article. Avoid the model of the second half of the article. You will notice that, you get to say much more clearly what you believe and why, if you follow this procedure. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The single shovel means "ask and tell". It does not mean "argue and prove". Furthermore, it does not mean "agree" - because we do not agree. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But although we cannot agree in spiritual understanding, we can agree in the natural procedure of Pretended Neutrality and Real Civility, so that we can clear away misunderstanding and thereby agree concerning which things they are that we do not understand in the other's beliefs. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, please let him understand this, I am NOT talking to you like a first grade child. I would have given up long ago, assuming that you do not have the capacity. I would have banned your butt from this place for not "getting it", long ago, on the assumption you were a kiddie with too much time on his hands, if I did not perceive some very STRONG reasons for believing that it would NOT be a waste of time to clear this thing up. Storm Rider has poisoned your mind with slander. I have never treated you like a child. The reason you feel put down is only because I have failed, again and again, to make myself clear to you. But the clearer I am, the more put down you will feel, until you get it. It is becoming less and less my fault. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider did not poison my mind. He named what it was I have been feeling. He put his finger right on it and I said, "Yes! That's IT!". 74s181 13:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And thus, he poisoned your mind. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly wrong

You wrote:

We don't make assertions about reality, only about what people believe about reality, this is the NPOV rule. Even then, we can never know what people really believe, we can only know what they or their representatives say they believe, this is the citation rule.

We make assertions about a reality - that is, a reality concerning what we believe. You say that "we can never know what people really believe" - this is false. We can know what they believe by what they say they believe. This is the Assume Good Faith rule. You must not assume that they are confused or that they are lying about their beliefs, especially in the context of a comparison of beliefs!
Consider - surely Mormons know this better than anyone! Consider what happens when your opponent does not Assume Good Faith! On the one hand, they accuse you of lying, of attempting to deceive and to disguise your real beliefs. And as they become more and more convinced of this, because you follow us around stealing our terminology, assuring us "Mormons are Christians 2", they look at you as though you have horns. You yourself have complained about what happens when it is assumed that "we can only know what they or their representatives say they believe" as though this were different from KNOWING that what they say is also what they believe. If they say it, we accept it. That is the citation rule. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, Mormons habitually assume that, if MC believe in Christ - and you assure us that you believe we do - then because you have the truth we will agree with you. Here, Mormons are operating on the assumption that our beliefs are not reality. And so again, and again, Mormons will say "it sounds as though this is just a difference in semantics", "you're saying just what I'm saying, in a roundabout way", "we shouldn't strain at gnats, here", and like-phrases which indicate that they are not listening. This is why Mormons misunderstand us when we refuse to pray with them. In our ears, it is as though you are saying, before throne of grace. knowledge of God does not matter. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The power of the third rail is not Truth, or truth, it is anger. 74s181 03:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. At least, it is not MY anger. I am not angry in the slightest. I am sad. Very, profoundly, sad. I mean, with tears, BECAUSE the third rail is Truth. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

When you say that you are not angry you are really taxing my ability to assume good faith. I want a citation. I was in fact very sad last night, especially when I saw you and Storm Rider attacking each other. I think you were angry. I think you were angry when you posted some of the things you posted today. 74s181 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But you would be wrong, on every count. When I've been angry, I've taken a vacation. I can't do anything, when I'm angry. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What you are calling "anger" is an adamant insistence on following the rules. I'm particularly adamant right now, because I hope that I'm very close to the goal of gaining your cooperation as an editor. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to assume good faith and believe that you didn't understand what I meant by "we can never know what people really believe, we can only know what they or their representatives say they believe". However, based on the last thing you said ("That is the citation rule") it seems to me that you did read and understand that I was talking about the importance of citations and not about talk page interaction. So, why are you doing this? 74s181 03:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The rules of the talk page only seem to be different - because they are interactive: that is, we interact there with the rules themselves. But in fact, they are the same rules. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Twist, twist. You were accusing me of not assuming good faith. I wasn't talking about the talk page, but since you brought it up, I think I have done very well in citing sources during the M&C talk page discussions, except for my recent proposal, and I made it clear that I hadn't done any research yet on that one. 74s181 03:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Twist, twist" comes from not assuming good faith. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

On a talk page, my statements concerning my beliefs are a citation of my beliefs. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Mark, you have the time zone advantage, you win. Goodnight, I hope you've had fun. 74s181 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As I told you weeks ago, the problem here is not lack of intelligence or good will, but trust. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

When I thought it was a luxury to interact with people who disagree with me, it was fun. I no longer think it's a luxury. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you were talking about the necessity of citations in the article, not the talk page. I'm trying to show you that the same rule applies to the talk page. If you follow me in this on the talk page, it really is the key for understanding how to take your many talents into the article page, and to agree with me in how to improve it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Important vs true

The distinction between "important" vs "true" is something that both of us can hear. When I hear you telling me what is important, I can ask you why it is important. I can ask you questions, like this one: "why is it important to you that the calling of Joseph parallels the calling of Jesus?" I can ask you, "Did I misunderstand what is important - how would you improve my understanding?" Then I can try again, until I get it right. Back and forth, trading the shovel, I ask and you tell, and I ask again until you fill up my understanding of what is important and I eliminate my misunderstanding. It will not be at all hard to find documentation to support this, if we get it exactly right. Do you see? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But if I hear you arguing "this is true, and this is why", I cannot hear it because I disagree. I will object to you pushing your point of view. Do you see? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right

I keep wanting to just drop this but then you say something that makes me think that we are close to understanding each other. So I'll try again.

What I mean to say is "this is true, and this is why LDS believe it", but I think that what you are reading is "this is true, and this is why YOU should believe it". One of the common MC statements about LDS doctrine is that it isn't Biblical. LDS believe that many if not all of their 'controversial' doctrines are at least as Biblical as the Nicene Trinity, if not more so. And so, when I present a particular LDS doctrine and a Bible scripture to support it, I'm not trying to prove that the doctrine is true, I'm only trying to show that believing doctrine X doesn't automatically make LDS a cult. 74s181 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to phrase this a different way. I don't believe in the Nicene Trinity doctrine. But I can read certain Bible scriptures and understand how they might be misinterpreted to fit a false premise (that is another discussion), and twisted to produce a false doctrine. I'm not asking you or any other MC to convert to LDS just because I quote some Bible scriptures, but I hope that you and they would understand that believing X doesn't prove that LDS are the Devil. Is that what you believe? That we are in league with Satan? 74s181 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Truth is spiritual. It is a hazard to say "this is true". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is one thing to say "I cannot believe this", "I don't understand", "How can this be?". It is another thing to say "I believe this is not true". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that "I cannot believe this" is ok, but "I believe this is not true" is not? 74s181 04:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying, these are different. It is for the truth to decide, whether it's "ok" - that's not for me to decide. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I have rarely tried to 'convert' you. And even when I have, I haven't been trying to convert you to LDS, but rather, to Christianity. I know that statement will be offensive to you, but we all need someone to shake us up once in a while, we all need to learn humility. My 'crack in the sidewalk' posting was an attempt to wake you up. Yes, I was also a little angry about the wheelbarrows and the shovel. That you would do such a thing, repeatedly, and then refer to the explanation as 'milk and cookies' makes me question your sincerity. I apologize for being angry, but I don't apologize for what I said, you needed to hear it, you still do, you haven't heard it yet. 74s181 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I hear it. You're just wrong. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm wrong? You have achieved perfect humility? 74s181 04:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I, myself, have achieved nothing - at least, as far as truth is concerned. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Read my user page. My goal here isn't to convert. It is to protect the seed of truth from the fowls of the air who want to devour it before it has a chance to sprout. Right now I think that is you. Please give me a reason to think otherwise. I think we can still work together, but only if we are honest with ourselves. You said "...we pretend that there exists a place in the world where truth does not matter." I think you are wrong, truth matters very much here. But it is the truth of what people say they believe, anything beyond that would be drawing a conclusion. I have allowed you to say what you believe, you must allow me to say what I believe. Even when I am saying back to you what I think you believe, it is what I believe and you must allow me to say it, at least on the talk page. And if I have been mistaken about your beliefs, you should correct me about your beliefs. I think you could do it in a more Christian way, but the point is moot, as I won't interact with you on the M&C talk page anymore. 74s181 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Now you have it exactly right. The truth of what people say is what matters here. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And that truth is, "I believe", or "I do not believe". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So, this is ok? "Even when I am saying back to you what I think you believe, it is what I believe and you must allow me to say it, at least on the talk page. " 74s181 04:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But my job is to take what you believe about my beliefs, and remove misunderstandings, so that what you believe may go into the article without misunderstandings. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what we did last night was pretty silly. If you really think that you have justification to have me banned, or blocked, or whatever the correct term is, go for it, it might just be easier for everyone involved. If your goal is to get me to stop talking to you on the M&C talk page, you've succeeded, but as long as you indicate your desire to continue this discussion here on my talk page I will continue to respond. When you are tired of this discussion, just say so and I'll let you have the last word here as well. 74s181 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Earnestness does look silly. But it only looks silly only when the earnestness wears off, or if one is not in earnest: that is, if one is silly. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that being earnest is important. <g> The back and forth, it just seemed silly in retrospect, it was almost like being in a chat room, something I don't do. 74s181 04:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is how the importance of what we are doing is disguised, for the protection of both of us. It's how we can be sure that what we are doing looks silly, and that keeps us safe so that we may speak to one another. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think we are very close now, because now at last you are talking about what you have been doing that I object to so much. And because you've put it so plainly, you have helped me to put my finger on what you haven't understood about what I am saying. What I am asking you to do is write on-topic. The only way for you as a Mormon to write on this topic, is to ask questions about "Mormonism and Christianity", and provide clarifications for our questions about "Mormonism and Christianity". That is the topic. If the topic were "Mormonism" I wouldn't object to your sermons about the LDS faith. If the topic were "Christianity" I would have entirely different objections than those I have on "Mormonism and Christianity". If you have no interest in clearing up Mormon misunderstandings of Trinitarianism, then move on to another page. But if the topic interests you, ASK QUESTIONS instead of making arguments, please. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I admit, my 'verbose' switch defaults to on. I will try to work on that. Other than that, I'm not sure I have really learned much about what you expect from me. However, I have learned some things to avoid. I'm still a little sore from the way you slapped me around, so I'm going to work on the First Vision article for a while. But I'll be back. 74s181 04:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I go over and over the things that I said, looking for hurtfulness, because I see how I hurt you. Don't mistake me, I am a sinful man. I am full of hurt, and have nothing from myself that can do you any good. I am angry, frustrated, humiliated, bitter. I say this so that you may be assured that I am not trying to deceive you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just remember, though - there is absolutely nothing special about me. I am worried for you, to keep you from stumbling, because just as you've observed that the LDS are treated as though they have horns, it can just as easily seem to you that I have horns. I am worried for myself, as well: because I've seen how the LDS have been treated. I have repented of hatred. It is a terrible and consuming fire. Please continue as you have, staying away from hatred. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking forward

74s181, I've watched your edits on First Vision and I want to encourage you in the good understanding that you have developed, of how our policies apply to controversial topics. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A Comment

74s181, I have to compliment you on your ability to maintain a sense of humor while editing the First Vision! There are probably more people watching than you think. Please keep up the good work. Regards, Bochica 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for going through and checking references. I've been meaning to do that for a very long time on some of the Joseph Smith-related articles, and I appreciate your own work in that area. If you ever run into some opposition and need someone else to compare the citation to the Wikipedia text to verify that you're making accurate changes, leave me a message. The Jade Knight 04:43, 16 June 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.

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: 16:18, 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 02:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Newbie User" and comment on the RfM (as well as the Arbitration request)

I have been a long-time Wikipedia user (actually.... I got started with GNUpedia.... later rolled into Nupedia and finally Wikipedia) and have been quite active on Wikibooks.

One of the things I've noticed which is substantially missing from the First Vision article is edits by anonymous IP users. Normally, nearly every article I work on has a significant number of these sort of edits.... quite often from somebody just "web surfing" and notices something that is just so obviously wrong that it needs to be "fixed". This can range from a simple spelling correction or reworking of a sentence to make better grammar, to even adding additional information that hasn't been presented before.

I mention this explicitly here.... not to mark you as a "newbie" but to explicitly make an argument that these individuals generally don't have as thick of skin as necessary to "fight" for their "fixes". About a third of the time (perhaps less) these are even pure vandalism of the sort that do need genuine reversion tools to "cleanse" the article of their mischief.... tools that John Foxe is obviously misusing in this case.

This is particularly important in the case of presenting this argument to the ArbCom, as these modest edits are the "life blood" of bringing new users to Wikipedia. If the actions of one or more users are keeping these new editor/contributors from participating on Wikipedia.... it is a huge loss to the project as a whole.

The day will come when John Foxe... like the rest of us... will tire of this current fight and move on with his life. I'm taking the long term view of this particular article, and doing a wait and see on how this is eventually going to turn out. I do hope that the ArbCom will try to review some of the "malpractice" that has been occurring on this article, as there are some policy issue here that are clearly being abused, and preventing the best Wikipedia article from being written. At the same time, I'm not necessarily looking to having Mr. Foxe have his account blocked or some other drastic action, as his POV is something to strongly consider when writing articles of this nature. It just doesn't need to dominate the article either.... which is exactly what you have been pointing out for some time. --Robert Horning 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First Vision

Have faith, good man. We will all learn something, and the article will come out the better for it. I already see improvement. Tom Haws 19:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

When? In time. A 2x4? Sorry, that won't work. Tom Haws 22:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC's are not bad. Just a request for comment. Simply inviting disinterested parties to add some reason to the mix. Turn up your hearing aid and go for it!  :-D Tom Haws 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood your question. I thought you meant a Request for Comment on the article, not on a person. I'm sorry about the confusion. Tom Haws 15:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am deeply embarrassed that I carelessly used this offensive phrase: "Turn up your hearing aid". I will try to do better. Tom Haws 17:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate seeing your self-introspection. It helps me. "I know that recently I often cross the line with John Foxe when it comes to WP:AGF and WP:NPA" Tom Haws 17:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I respect this: "...he'll continue his wrong behavior, I'll continue my wrong behavior, nothing will get fixed. So I'm pressing this to a conclusion" With this kind of attitude, good will happen, I am sure of it. I hope JF takes his own responsibility as seriously. Thanks for taking the time to communicate with me. Tom Haws 17:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A word from Proverbs

"He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city." Proverbs 16: 32. All the best, John Foxe 14:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your note

This sounds like a typical content dispute. The way to handle it is via dispute resolution procedures. Just hoping to get your way by 'punishing' the other side is wrong. Trying to file a false 3RR report is also wrong, and reflects badly on the filer. Please give dispute resolution a chance, and be sure to follow the rules. Thanks, Crum375 15:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered WP:RFC? Crum375 18:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Good luck on your RfC, then. And I understand your frustration, believe me, I've been there. Crum375 02:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I would appreciate it if you could take the time to review Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It seems apparent that it is designed to be purposely sensationalistic. There are some discussions that would be benefited by a broader range of input. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This is awarded to you for your endless patience in attempting to maintain a neutral viewpoint on the First Vision article; a prodigious work and endless task indeed. Storm Rider (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

An invitation

Les, I have no idea whether anything can be accomplished by an off-line discussion, but I'd like to extend the invitation in any case. I can be reached at my Wikipedia e-mail address. All the best,--John Foxe 10:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your first message didn't make it through, Les.--John Foxe 20:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi. I've nominated 74181, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on October 27, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

74181

On 2 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 74181, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 18:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not bad, eh? Plucked from the trashcan, and right on the front page. Congrats on writing a nice article! -- RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad behavior

74s181, I apologize for getting angry. It was uncalled for. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Making you angry wasn't my goal, but I was prepared for an angry response. I'm really trying to peel the onion, I'm trying to understand. Clearly this is a sensitive area for both sides, for that reason I think there is something important here. I accept your apology, let's try to figure this out. 74s181 13:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What you want to figure out has to be the same thing I want to figure out, or we can't work together on the same thing. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this for example:

"from the perspective of this LDS it seems that when talking about LDS belief, MC express much more emotion (anger? it seems so) about the LDS doctrines concerning the nature of God than LDS do when talking about MC belief in the Trinity doctrine"

Have you ever read, "For zeal for Your house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me."? Have you ever read, "See that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name, saying,'I am he!' and they will lead many astray."? Have you read, "Whoever rebukes a man will afterward find more favor than he who flatters with his tongue."? If we perceive that things that are not of God are being joined to God by flattery, this calls for rebuke. The marvel for me is that you wonder why. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, I am trying not to say "this is fact" or "this is truth", I'm trying to say "this is what LDS believe" or "this is what I believe" or "this is what I think you believe". I could quote New Testament scriptures about tolerance and acceptance, but I'm sure you are more familiar with them than I. 74s181 21:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been a frustrating round. I have not been able to change what you think we believe, no matter how I put it. More than this, I can't change your approach to working with me (your drive for final judgment), which I find extremely exasperating. Now you think I have made no real effort to communicate; and in effect, this is the same thing I've been complaining about in your recent exchanges.

It's often the case that we think we see faults in others, that we know intimately in ourselves but do not see. This shuts our mouths, or it becomes a fire that consumes us from within. I think, since we have this warning from the same place, that you and I should consider ourselves equally warned.

In spite of the fact that you are very frustrating to work with, you are a real editor, and you are not a boaster, unlike some others. I am saddened that you have become discouraged, and I'm embarrassed that it's because I lost my temper. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Excessive

I think this edit's last paragraph is rather excessive, don't you? I urge you to refactor it or remove it entirely. Best wishes, alanyst ^/talk/ 04:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Excessive what? I think it is factually correct and appropriate, given the circumstances. 74s181 (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Refactor? I suppose I could remove the bold formatting, or the all caps, but that would make this statement no different than the ten or twenty other times that I have tried to explain this concept to John Foxe. Is there something factually wrong in my statement about WP policy? If so, please let me know. 74s181 (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Or, are you simply objecting to the shouting? If so, please say so. I am incapable of understanding subtle criticism, I've made that clear on my user page. If you have a concern about my behavior you need to state the concern, you need to be specific and clear. 74s181 (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove it entirely? I would only do that if I was giving up on getting John Foxe to understand his problem. 74s181 (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to be unclear. It's primarily the all-caps bold text that comes across as excessive, but my overall impression is that you're allowing yourself to get way more frustrated than you need to. I know you've been butting heads with John Foxe for a long time now; I've been watching the goings-on at First Vision for longer than I've been involved in the discussion. I've got no doubt you're frustrated, as you make that abundantly clear. But venting in this way does absolutely no good except to show everyone that you're frustrated, and it does considerable harm. It makes the atmosphere much less pleasant. It makes yourself look childish. It gives ammunition to your opponents. It weakens the good arguments you make by directing readers' attention away from them or diminishing their respect for the person making them. Most significantly, it's unlikely that John Foxe will change his mind just because you're shouting instead of patiently trying to reason with him. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has changed, nothing is changing, nothing will change if I continue repeating the same arguments in a calm, cool, collected voice forever. I can quit, I can shout, or I can try another WP:RFAR. What do you recommend, Alanyst? 74s181 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to recommend, as I'm not exactly sure what specific changes you're hoping for. But saying "nothing will change" seems unreasonably pessimistic, unless you're talking about the very short term. What are the signs of progress that you've been looking for but not seeing? alanyst ^/talk/ 21:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

JF still insists that expert opinions are historical facts, he is still trying to 'prove' things, he still refuses to attribute POV. See latest edits in First Vision and JF's reply to my shouting under Talk:First_Vision#Removed_W._Walters_stuff.

74s181 (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cowdery War

Thanks for the post. What I am trying to do is to get him to accept that statements of opinion are not authoritative, no matter how eminent the person making them. I see from various other pages that he has a longstanding problem with this. He doesn't accept that Wikipedia is making statements, not arguments. I admire his tenacity, but it does not help the project any. There are too many people who cannot stand to see things written down with which they disagree, and they let that blind them to the purpose of Wikipedia. - Iain1917 (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he has a major problem with this, I've been fighting it for some time. Thanks for the clarification. 74s181 (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Probable meatpuppet revert"

Can you please explain your choice of phrase "Probable meatpuppet revert" in the edit summary of that diff? How is Duke53 a meatpuppet of JF, aside from their obviously similar views about Mormonism? Doesn't mean they're colluding to push their POV on Wikipedia, does it? If you don't have evidence for meatpuppetry, I think you owe both of them an apology. And if you do have evidence, post it in the appropriate place, and please don't just throw out accusations in edit summaries. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I will be happy to explain my actions. BTW, I didn't say that Duke53 was acting as a meatpuppet of JF, why would you assume that? Hmmmm... 74s181 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• John Foxe has been blocked for 3RR violation in the past, including once for 'gaming the system' when his fourth revert was outside the 24 hour period.
• John Foxe has reverted this edit multiple times.
• John Foxe stopped reverting yesterday as he approached the 3RR limit.
• John Foxe reverted again slightly over 24 hours after my last revert.
• John Foxe and Duke53 have common, extreme anti-Mormon POV.
• Duke53 has never edited the First Vision article except for the revert today and two edits in April 2007. It is interesting that John Foxe reverted to Duke53's last edit on 24 April 2007 after I made some changes. Maybe Duke53 felt that he owed one to John Foxe.
• Duke53 has expressed support to John Foxe during past skirmishes.
• Duke53 gave no explanation in the comment field of the revert, and added no explanation to the article talk page.

I said 'probable' because I didn't have direct evidence of communication between John Foxe and Duke53 on this particular issue at that particular time. However, I would be happy to apologize to both of them for thinking that the circumstantial evidence suggested that Duke53 was probably acting as a meat puppet of John Foxe when he reverted. But I think it would be a wasted gesture, especially for Duke53. 74s181 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Alanyst, you said, "post it in the appropriate place", where would that be? Let me guess, WP:YetAnotherWPProcessThatWillAccomplishNothingExceptToWasteMyTimeAndEntertainJohnFoxe? I've tried following various WP processes in the past. After many hours of documenting JF's inapropriate behavior, I had success one time, John Foxe got a 24 hour 'slap on the wrist' block. Although he is much more careful about reverting now, he knows that no one with any authority to do anything cares what happens in this article, he laughs whenever anyone talks about sanctions. And yes, I can document all of this if you think it will do any good. 74s181 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First Vision reverts

So, now you're getting Duke53 to do your dirty work? Very Foxey indeed, but I am a bit surprised. 74s181 (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Duke53 and I have never communicated about First Vision, although I have thanked him for his encouragement in the past. I admit that it would be nice to have a non-Mormon ally at Mormon articles, but I long ago promised long ago not to create sock puppets or attempt to recruit others to support my views. That's a promise I've kept and intend to keep.--John Foxe (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

74s181, consider this a warning about making personal attacks. Your insinuation that I am doing 'dirty work' (especially 'for' someone else) is not cool. I happen to agree with the other editor and think that you are wrong; attacking people who hold opposing viewpoints will not get you far in Wikipedia. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"...personal attacks." Nothing personal about it, I've had very little interaction with you, Duke53. I would probably have responded the same way to anyone whose user page exhibited such a blatant anti-Mormon bias, who had so little history on the First Vision article, and who introduced themselves by joining in an edit war and reverting without comment or discussion. 74s181 03:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"...attacking people who hold opposing viewpoints..." I can get along just fine with anti-mormon editors. What is frustrating is an anti-mormon editor that is either unable or unwilling to understand and comply with WP:NPOV policies. Your revert indicates that you either share John Foxe's misunderstanding of WP:NPOV policies, or else you consider supporting his agenda more important than helping him to better understand these policies. Because you didn't provide a description for your revert, I am left to guess at your reasons. Sorry if I guessed wrong but you made it pretty hard for me to assume good faith. 74s181 03:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Duke53, I see that you posted a revert warning on John Foxe's talk page. Nice touch. 74s181 03:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out to me ... I meant the warning to be directed at you. Here it is again, for your benefit:

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

p.s. You really don't own the article; I won't ever explain my every move to you. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I edited, John Foxe reverted my edit four times, I reverted his reverts four times, and you think the warning about "undoing other people's edits repeatedly" should be directed at me. At least you're consistent, I was begining to wonder if I had fallen into the twilite zone or maybe you were trying to demonstrate your independence from John Foxe. 74s181 05:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Duke53, I don't expect you to explain your every move to me, but normally, editors put comments on their edits, especially the more controversial ones. This is even more important for reverts, generally editors also add a comment to the talk page explaining their actions. I've left comments, so has John Foxe. No comments from Duke53 on the revert itself, or on the talk page. 74s181 05:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding ownership, trust me, I know who owns the First Vision article, and it isn't me. Take a look at the edit history for the last year or so. Other editors come and go, but one consistently enforces his POV. 74s181 05:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see which editor has made the most edits at that article, but I am way too busy to bother counting them. p.s. do you believe that you shouldn't have received a 3RR warning ? :>) Duke53 | ^Talk 06:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"...which editor has made the most edits at that article..." I'm pretty sure that JF would be at the top of the list. What would be more interesting would be to see which editor did the most reverts. There have been many situations where I would do several edits, JF would do one revert, I would do several edits, trying to satisfy JF's objections, he would revert again. This pattern would continue until I gave up. For a while he tried disguising his reverts by spreading a single revert over several edits, but apparently he's dropped that pretense. JF's interaction with other editors is similar, except that most other editors either give up sooner or start reverting. I've now given up trying to satisfy him, instead I'll try to match him revert for revert. 74s181 14:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't receive a 3RR warning if John Foxe doesn't. I edited in good faith, John Foxe reverted. John Foxe doesn't want to follow WP:NPOV policy, I do. The proof is that I explain policy to JF, I quote policy as part of my explanations, but JF posts comments that suggest he thinks it is all a big joke or just restates his view on 'Truth' or 'proof', he provides no references to WP policy (because WP policy doesn't support his agenda or behavior) and then he continues his bad behavior. 74s181 14:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So ... you are reverting in 'good faith', which means that you are allowed to violate 3RR? I don't think that that is the way it works, 74. I'd think that perhaps it is time for you to try another another official WP remedy, except that the last one didn't go the way you'd hoped for. You have hopes and dreams about how this article should be written that aren't exactly supported by a swarm of editors; maybe your way is incorrect? Your interpretation of WP policy might not be the correct one. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

... "I'll try to match him revert for revert". Hmm ... almost sounds like you are planning and preparing to edit war ... also a big WP 'no-no'. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"...reverting in 'good faith'..." Wrong again. I edited in good faith, JF reverted because that is what he does. 74s181 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"...allowed to violate 3RR..." John Foxe has been sanctioned twice for 3RR violation, I have not. Yet. However, NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable, it is the #1 foundational principle of Wikipedia. IMHO, that means it trumps everything. 74s181 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"...try another official WP remedy..." Suggest one that I haven't tried, maybe I'll try it. 74s181 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Your interpretation of WP policy might not be the correct one." You may be right. I'd rather learn than waste my time beating my head against the wall, so, Duke53, you're such a model WP citizen, show me what is wrong with my explanations of WP:NPOV, which, BTW, is the most fundamental of all WP policies. And, BTW, "show me" means, reference WP policy statements that show what is wrong with what I have said about NPOV, don't just repeat John Foxe's spin. 74s181 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"...preparing to edit war..." The difference between John Foxe and myself is that John Foxe's agenda is only served by violating WP:NPOV law, while my agenda is perfectly served by following WP:NPOV law. Unfortunately there are no police to call or at least none who care to respond, so I am forced to be a vigilante. Fine. I am ready. If John Foxe insists on declaring an edit war on someone who is trying to improve the article I'll do what I can to enforce the law. 74s181 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay then ... let me get this straight: you (a self-described 'vigilante') are allowed to break rules if your interpretation of a policy tells you to do so? John Foxe should be banned for 3RR violations, but your doing the same thing should go unpunished?

One thing that is common knowledge to most everybody who reads this article regularly is your agenda: making this article fall into lockstep with your personal beliefs, which may closely follow (if not mirror) the beliefs taught by the lds church. That is pretty important in and by itself.Duke53 | ^Talk 03:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Twist, twist. I am not allowed to break the rules, but no one else will enforce the law so I will try to do so. I said, "...my agenda is perfectly served by following WP:NPOV law." (emphasis added) I've already broken lesser rules, but only after John Foxe broke them first. Duke53, you also participated in the edit war, you are as guilty as John Foxe and I. The difference is, John Foxe broke the rules first, in order to enforce his POV, while I reverted only AFTER John Foxe had already done so, and only in an effort to defend WP:NPOV, the highest law here on Wikipedia. If you look at the article edit history you will see that this is an extreme step for me, in the past I have re-edited and re-edited, attempting to find a compromise wording that would satisfy John Foxe. I simply didn't have time this time. 74s181 (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you ignored my request to teach me about WP:NPOV. Why is that, Duke53? Believe it or not, I am a reasonable person. If you are so sure that my understanding of WP policy is wrong, wouldn't it be worth a few minutes of your time to try to correct it, rather than twisting my words and trying to paint me as some kind of WP terrorist? 74s181 (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Doctrine

74, the doctrine of the church is only found in the Standard Works, official declarations and Proclamations; it is always been so. If every word that came out of a prophets mouth were doctrine we would be making the God and not allow them the reality of being men. Brigham Young's comments on the Adam God theory would be doctrine, which it is not and has been claimed to be false. Prophets reveal the word of God when moved upon by the Holy Spirit, but their words do not become doctrine unless they are added to the Standard Works. I can send you some information written about this topic or you can research it yourself.

There is a definite confusion when the Brethren teach that every word spoken at General Conference WHEN DIRECTED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT is the word of God. The obvious qualifier is when moved upon by the Holy Spirit. Our responsiblity is to have the Holy Spirit with us to know that what they say is true and their responsibiiity is to speak by the Spirit.

Let us flip this around and put it into a practical situation; how many times do the Brethren bring up new doctrinal issues at conference? In reality, very seldom or almost never. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, and our work, is to bring mankind to salvation. We do this by teaching Jesus Christ crucified, resurrected, and Savior of all, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. When we look at the trifold purpose of the church we see this in action; preach the gospel, pefect the saints, and redeem the dead.

Some LDS leaders have attempted to provide some information about where God came from or the First Cause, as Brigham Young called it. However, none of them have elaborated more than President Snow's oft repeated comment. Maybe I am a little like Thomas, until I hear a definite statement that is added to the Standard Works or an official Proclamation, I reject what some have taught. President Hinckley made it clear in his statement, "I don't think that is what we teach". He was not dodging the question asked. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that many things said by early church leaders were opinions. I include Brigham Young in that. I agree that it is very seldom that new doctrine is introduced, in General Conference or anywhere else. I think "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" is the most recent doctrinal declaration, and it isn't really new doctrine, more of a position statement.

You mentioned the Adam-God theory. This is not doctrine, it in a totally different category than "As man is..." because it has been officially repudiated by the church. However, I think there was probably something true that Brigham Young attempted to teach, but it was misunderstood by most, perhaps even by him. An interesting thought relating to this, if we assume that the name of the first man of every world is Adam, and if we assume that God the Father was the first man of the world on which he walked in mortality (a different world than this one), then many of Brigham Young's statements take on a different, much less controversial meaning. But still not doctrine.

President Hinckley could have easily said that "As man is, God once was" is false doctrine, either in the Larry King interview, or in his follow up comments at General Conference. He did not. I think he was taken a bit by surprise, but his answer was true. Look at what he said about women holding the priesthood, he said that it would take a revelation from God and that he didn't expect one. He didn't say it would never happen, I think our leaders today have learned from what happened 30 years ago, prior to the revelation on the priesthood.

The statement by Brigham Young that I referenced is not found in a work written by a historian or General Authority and published by Deseret Books or someplace else. It is in an official publication of the Church, a lesson manual, approved for teaching, study, and reference. Every word in it has been vetted and re-vetted. You might find a typo here and there, but this phrase is present because someone with authority decided it should be included.

Having said that, I don't want you to think that I'm wacko on this or any other similar subject. Once in a while I'll let myself get carried away in speculation, but I know that this isn't something worth spending a lot of time on. The Truth is, God the Father has a body of flesh and bone, He got it somehow. Several prophets, including Joseph Smith, Jr. taught that He walked as a man on an earth. This seems like the simplest, most likely explanation to me, and I'll continue to believe it until a prophet of God says otherwise. Who created that earth and how He came to be on it is a completely different subject.

Storm Rider, my biggest concern was that your statement "A man, regardless if he is a prophet, an apostle, or holding any other position, cannot make doctrine of the church unilaterally" could also be applied to Joseph Smith, Jr. I don't think that is what you meant. 74s181 (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that Joseph' and other prophets words have been accepted as scripture. In the early days of the church revelation was consistently given because there was a need. Those revelations were recorded and many were accepted as doctrine, i.e. they were added to scripture. Others were not and that is significant. This concept of attempting to define the First Cause is fruitless in our understanding today. A unilateral action is not the process we have ever used; revelations are brought before the church and we are asked to accept them (which we always do) and they are added to the Standard Works.

If we assume that God the Father was once a man; we are still left with the same problem; who was the First? Scripture tells us I am the first and the last. The context may apply just to this earth, but I am not sure. I am not saying that these concepts are false, but I am saying that they are not the doctrine of the church. If they were, they would have been added to the Standard Works. I also feel that as a concept it adds no light to understanding because the question still remains, who was the First Cause? Brigham said, essentially, to forget about it because we cannot possibly begin to understand it. That is sufficient for me.

As an aside, I think that the Brethren have created a problem since they started teaching that if it is spoken in general conference, when directed by the Holy Spirit, it is scripture. When they do this we then must go back to the beginning of the church and say that everything that was said in all GCs was scripture. However, we have rejected some teachings as false. We have removed the items from the D&C. Were they not taught by the Holy Spirit? That back door is too broad; my conclusion is there is a difference between the SW and the "scripture" the Brethren are discussing. In reality, the church has been quite active in determining what is and is not acceptable to be part of the Standard Works.

I will say that some teachings have become Mormon culture. Mother in Heaven, creating worlds and children in exaltation, etc. There are beliefs and teachings that are discussed openly but are not part of the SW, yet many take them for doctrine. This concept of God being man is one of the biggest...and yet it is not in the SW. I find that significant and gives me pause. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

D&C 89 starts with "To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint...", but the doctrine today is that the word of wisdom is a commandment. Where is the scripture that says so? There is none. Yes, it was voted on in GC, but it is not in the standard works.

I believe the family proclamation was first presented at a Women's conference, I don't remember if was ever sustained in GC. Is it doctrine? I think so. It is in the curriculum, it is explicitly taught. It isn't in the standard works, but I expect it will be, eventually.

The revelation on the priesthood was doctrine on the day that the letter from the 1st Presidency to the leadership of the church was sent. The letter didn't say to wait until after the next GC, or until the revelation could be added to the D&C.

As I said, President Hinckley has commented on the "As man is..." doctrine without explicitly disavowing it, and the Church, under the direction of the current 1st Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve has published curriculum that contains at least one statement supporting it. This doctrine is not like the Adam-God theory. It is not like any of the various past theories regarding the priesthood and men of African ancestry. I will agree that it is not a doctrine that is intended to be taught, our understanding of it is incomplete, but this is true of many other doctrines, some of which you have mentioned here. "As man is..." is not quite like "...Mother in Heaven, creating worlds and children in exaltation, etc...", these doctrines are supported by scripture and recent statements. But I think the fact that it appears in an approved, current instructional manual makes it doctrine.

Regarding GC talks, we have been told repeatedly that we should treat the GC talks as scripture for the next six months, no one has ever contradicted that.

Regarding first cause, I think the mortal mind cannot comprehend Eternity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The hymn says there is no begining and no end. I can accept, on faith, that I don't need to know the answer to the first cause question in this stage of my existence.

The whole question of what is doctrine sounds like a good subject for a conference talk. I'll have to look and see what I can find. Of course, it then becomes a personal faith problem, doesn't it? Sort of like the prophet saying that the Lord will never allow his prophet to lead the people astray.

But this whole discussion is meaningless as far as WP is concerned. All that matters here is whether or not someone can find a WP:RS expert that says most or some LDS believe "As man is, God once was". 74s181 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

Nominating Perfection (Latter Day Saints) for deletion

Giving you a heads up, since you were the creator of this article - I have nominated it for deletion: Perfection (Latter Day Saints)

MfD nomination of User:74s181/Sandbox/History of the Latter Day Saint movement

User:74s181/Sandbox/History of the Latter Day Saint movement, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:74s181/Sandbox/History of the Latter Day Saint movement and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:74s181/Sandbox/History of the Latter Day Saint movement during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)