User talk:Storm Rider/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Naming Conventions Attack

I am again being targetted by the clique for daring to oppose a vital change being made to the Naming Conventions policy to back up their assault on the Naming conflict page.

I have been reported for "edit-warring" (pot and kettle) at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Xandar. Can you explain some of the background? Xandar 02:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Southern Baptist State Conventions

Could you please help me Storm Rider? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Malik_Shabazz Milik (and a few others) at this address does not see the Baptist state conventions as notable. Would you be able to help me document these conventions. They are all a part of the Southern Baptist Convention. Having comprehensive coverage of the largest evangelical denomination in the world would be helpful to many. I named the doctrinal standard of the conventions as well as the entities they own and operate. As an SBC pastor I can assure you this is important and valuable information. I sincerely believe the conventions qualify as notable because they are a part of the SBC. Also, I linked each convention web site which verifies the bulk of information I contributed. In addition, I called each state convention to verify the number of churches in each state. Any help you could render would be most helpful. Thank you. Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

COPY of response to your post:

StormRider, I think the RfC is a step on the way to getting wider community participation in this. Of course all the editors of articles and groups of articles likely to be affected by this STILL aren't getting contacted - except for those seeing the RfC and the notices to past participants. Really there needs to be a way of getting all interested parties involved, rather than any party of policy-wallahs who happen to be sitting on the page enforcing their view. Focussing on me shows that they are not so confident in the validity of their arguments for imposing what is a very top-down proscriptive policy - no matter what Hesperian now claims. I agree that some of the behaviour needs to be sanctioned. And I am complaining about User: YellowMonkey who one-sidedly sanctioned me and no one else. I don't think that sort of behaviour by Admins should be let rest - or it will continue. Xandar 22:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Xandar"

The RfC section at WP:NAME has been made so messy by people putting in sub-sections etc. that I am sure it is confusing people and putting them off commenting. Is there any way we can sort it out? Xandar 00:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Locking of Naming Conflict

While I could live with the last lock, which left a half-and-half version of the guidance up, with dispute notices. This latest lock by LaserBrain is totally wrong. It puts a non-consensus draft which is strongly opposed as the main guideline indefinitely and with no dispute tags. If LB does not do the right thing, where is the best place to go in the WP bureaucracy to challenge this? Xandar 23:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I warned him on the page and on his discussion page. His lock is inappropriate because it blatantly demonstrates his bias and in doing so should have prevented him from participation as an admin. If he acts again, I will move for him to be disciplined by admins. --^StormRider 23:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:PREFER definitely applies to the protected version. We need the last ChrisO edit protected - but where is best place to bring this up? . Xandar 23:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at WP:ADMIN, which you will find helpful. I have warned Andy already; he poorly played his cards because he admitted that he is biased. Two editors are needed to report him for possible discipline. --^StormRider 23:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The page was "protected" just 3 minutes after Ohms Law changed it again... Hmmm. Xandar 01:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

New suggestion

I have suggested the following specific wording to try to resove the "naming conflict" dispute...

In the majority of cases the name that a self-identifying entity uses of itself is identical with the most common name for that entity as found in reliable sources. In some cases they will differ. When conflicts arise over such differences there are certain criteria that Wikipedia editors consider in order to determine which to use in an article:

• Is the most commonly used name considered by the person or entity concerned to be offensive or derogatory?
• Is the most commonly used name significantly less accurate or precise than the official or self-identifying name? For example Canadian Navy actually redirects to the more accurate Canadian Forces Maritime Command
• Has the name of a person or entity recently been officially changed by that person or entity - as verified by reliable sources?

In such cases Wikipedia editors give consideration to using the current self-identifying name of the person or entity concerned, as verified by reliable sources.

What do you think? Xandar 22:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This reads very well to me and it summarizes what I think is important about proper names for articles. Good job and thank you for sharing. --^StormRider 22:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I've put it up at the Naming conflict talk page. PMA is ardently opposed of course. See current discussion. Xandar 23:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Christianity

Just want to thank you for your excellent, even-handed appeal on Talk:Christianity today. It was wise, mature, and tactful--not easy to find on Wikipedia. Afaprof01 (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Request

Thanks for your help earlier. I was wondering if you would give your opinion on the criticism of the LDS movement article, specifically the talk page, under the Title section. My view may be wrong, but it would be helpful if you would let me know. Its a long debate and I'm sorry for how tedious it may be to read, but If I am wrong, I'd prefer not to spend hours and hours debating about it, which is why I'm requesting your input on the talk page. Thanks Stormrider. Sharpsr1990 (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Latter Day v Latter-Day. <http://www.lds.org/> hyphenates it, and it's their name. Hence, it should be hyphenated. It seems they want it to be an adjective which hyphenating it would achieve.

Please see http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=ca07ae4af9c7e010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD which is their official Style Guide to the name of the church. An interesting decision-logic table as to when to use each term.

I note that Talk Page #13, Merge with Mormonism, is unresolved, but was posted only 9/26. If there is anything else in particular you'd like me to look at, pls let me know. I don't mind wading through Talk if I know more specifically what areas (like Title) you like commented. Regards, Afaprof01 (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Care should be made with capitalization. Latter-day Saint only refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while Latter Day Saint refers to the entire Latter Day Saint movement, i.e. all of the groups that decended from the teachings of Joseph Smith. Thank you for your efforts; they are much appreciated. I will look at the merge proposal. --^StormRider 03:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Kotniski and Blueboar are now proposing merging Naming conflict into Wikipedia:Naming conventions along with some other guidelines. What do you think of the idea, and of Kotniski's suggested draft of a merged page, which is at User:Kotniski/NC? At the moment I think a merge could avoid the claims of so-called "conflicts" between guideline and policy, but the version of K could do with more on self-identification and conflict resolution. Xandar 08:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Vote Re CC origins and historians differing POV's

Hello Stormrider, sorry to bother you but we are having a vote on the Catholic Church page regarding whether or not to include the dispute among historians regarding the Church origins. Can you please come an give us your vote so we can come to consensus? Vote is taking place here [1] Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 01:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I also responded to your kind words here [2]. NancyHeise ^talk 04:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

invitation

Can you please come here [3] and discuss. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Rick Edwards

Hey,

I think we're gonna get a few people adding unsourced material to this article. Danny Wallace just told his followers on Twitter to update it with 'interesting facts'. JuneGloom07 (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for the fast revert on my talk page - faster than the speed of light. Enjoy your delectable baked goods! :) SMC (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers also for the blazingly fast revert of vandalism to the Muesli page today: 3 minutes 3 seconds from vandalism to revert. --Woodlandpath (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Mormonism and Judaism page

Well, there are lots of uncited claims on the page, most of the same 'mormons love jews really' bent. So, while removing the whole mess might solve the mormons-offer-their-space-for-jews-to-worship absurdity, it also opens up a whole other can of worms. FiveRings (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason for uncited claims to remain in the article. If there has been a cite request for longer than a month, let's just delete it. If there are statements that need to be referenced, but don't yet have a cite request, then let's put them on there.

LDS have a some very definite beliefs about the House of Israel and there certainly is a belief that LDS are either adopted into it or are descendants. This foundational belief should be acknowledged, but the fluff needs to limited to cited statements and the rest should be deleted. Are we on the same page or are you thinking of something else? -^StormRider 21:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I you're right Storm. NancyHeise ^talk 19:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Hi StormRider, we are discussing the sex abuse paragraph here [4]. I am trying to get some past editors to come to the discussion so we can discover what others think. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 19:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

StormRider, I am new to Wikipedia. I work at the Church Office Building and have been asked by Elder Bruce C. Hafen to help with his Wiki bio (Bruce C. Hafen). The last two sentences of his bio were pasted from the Salt Lake Tribune following his September 2009 address to Evergreen about same-gender attraction. He feels that these last two sentences need more context if they are to remain in his bio. He has given me some suggested text that includes the information from those two sentences but with added sentences for more context. He has citations (the online transcript of his address from LDS.org Newsroom and the biography section of LDS.org Newsroom). I'm not sure how best to proceed. Can you help? If possible, please respond to my talk page. Thanks. CedricMalone (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming policy again

Can you go to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Unagreed_change and look at the discussion there? PMA has significantly changed the wording on self-identifying names that was agreed when "Naming conflict" was "merged" into the "Naming conventions" policy page. The regulars on the page seem to be supporting his unilateral change. I think it needs wider attention. Xandar 03:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Storm Rider! NancyHeise ^talk 07:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chosen people

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chosen people. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chosen people. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Storm, thanks for your note. As you were writing it, I was writing a note to Nancy asking her to consider stepping back from the article. I don't know the background or any of the details of the content dispute, but it does look as though Nancy has become too deeply involved in this page, and I wonder whether extricating herself for a while would be helpful all round, including for her. That's not to say that she's done anything wrong. These things end up being about dynamics rather than individual wrong-doing. Perhaps you could say on Nancy's talk page whether you think that request is fair one. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I can support this and have made the request. --^StormRider 01:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Instructive diatribes

Hi. Regarding my reply to you the other day ... I wanted to tell you that I'm pretty annoyed with myself for the way I jumped unasked into that conversation. For the record, I do stand by what I said, but not the way in which I said it. I was pissed off with something completely unrelated and took it out on you. My tone, masked though it was in a self-righteous lecture on civility, was designed to antagonise, specifically through the ... vivid ... example I presented of what constitutes a personal attack. I don't think I've ever done that on Wikipedia before and I don't intend to do so again. I'm vaguely proud of the fact that I've been involved in some pretty contentious situations in my years here, yet haven't managed to make an enemy of any regular editor. This isn't the place for that. I've no intention of entering into the CC dispute, but should our paths cross again, be assured that I'll be back to my usual collegial self. All the best, Steve ^T • C 01:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Steve, I did not take your words/examples personally. I did find it odd that so many editors came to Sandy's "aid". I am still puzzled as to what that means. We all succumb to emotion now and then; none is immune. Verbal sparring matches can be fun, but we should use our wits and not get too crass. The CC dispute is unfortunate and I don't have the time to really get overly involved. At present I think it best to let those few editors that are active on it to have their way. Afterwards, it will be time to go back and review and propose any improvments. I hope that we can work together in the future. I will try to use what little brains I have left next time. --^StormRider 01:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

After the storm

I hope you are willing to consider your own advice; you are welcome back at my talk whenever you're ready to discuss peacefully and objectively, without attacks. I, too, apologize for the stridency of my posts during these events, but continue to believe that Nancy and Xandar have pushed the community beyond all reasonable bounds of battleground, ownership and failure to assume good faith, and would not *hear* any other tone.[5] Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I am not here to make friends or offend others. I care about the work I do and I have a high expectation of the work that goes on here. I neither condone or condemn the actions of Nancy or Xandar; what is important is the manner in which we individually act. I gave a warning, one I feel was appropriate for the manner in which you were focusing on Nancy rather than the content of the article. I was firm in my communication not because I "have an admin in my back pocket", but because I stand firm on our policies and rules. You are a better editor than you showed in the Catholic Church article. It was one of those times when emotion took over rather than good sense. We have all been there and we have all chosen poorly in the past. When we choose poorly it is appropriate for others to talk to us and even warn us. It should not be perceived as a personal affront, but rather an acknowledgment that we care about Wikipedia and how editors interact with others.

I was amused at how so many editors came to your defense. It is unfortunate that they did not choose to counsel you themselves earlier. It would have saved us all a headache. It was not acceptable for you or Malleus to delete my last edit. I do not completely shun contention (just look at my edit history), a good row every now and then can be fun. However, they are never worth dwelling on. I bear you no malice or hard feelings. Let's just move on and build a better Wikipedia. I am confident our next interactions will be more positive.--^StormRider 00:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

You commented on the recent sweeping changes to the article. My critique of them and an alternate suggestion is linked at Talk:Catholic_Church#Recent_Major_and_Substantive_Changes_to_this_Article Xandar 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Declaration of intent to edit war

This is not wise. Might I suggest rephrasing it so it does not indicate intent to edit war outside of consensus?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am confused, could you please explain how you arrived at that conclusion? --^StormRider 17:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"However, I am willing to return after this select group has their way and they finish their "collaborative" efforts and then add back all that is missing." is pretty clear. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that you have moved to a position seeing things that are not there, a rather hypersensitive position. To edit war means there must be two parties or an opposing force. What I have indicated is that I will allow the current junta, one that has created such a toxic environment that makes it impossible for me to participate, the time they want to edit as they choose. After they have finished and lost interest in the article, I will then begin to contribute.

Consensus is a strange beast. It only exist when two group with conflicting ideas arrive at a solution. Consensus does not exist nor can it exist when every opposing editor is run off from an article leaving only like minds to edit. To edit war is the furthest thing from my mind and I have made it crystal clear, "I am willing to return after this select group has their way and they finish". I again caution you, you have moved from a neutral position to one of advocacy for a specific group and an enforcer. Acting as an admin in this situation is not in your best interest or in the best interest of Wikipedia. I reject you accusation completely and ask that you step back, ask another admin of neutral persuasion to review our interaction and my edits to determine if I am threatening to edit war. --^StormRider 17:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sarek asked for "a neutral admin" to comment on this issue. I've deliberately avoided even looking at the article; in fact, I'm not even certain what the article is. I read the diff which contained your comment on the talk page, and your comment is - indeed - very poorly worded. Perhaps you did not intend for it to connote that you intend to 'edit war', but that is what it connotes. As such, I strongly recommend that you modify your comment. DS (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also add that referring to collaborative editors as the "current junta" contributes to the WP:BATTLEGROUND that already existed at that article. I also agree that you need to modify your comments and tone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, you are part of the junta and frankly, I don't trust you to be neutral, objective, or pleasant. Please stop editing my page. You created the battleground and you persist in creating a highly toxic environment where I refuse to participate. We have nothing to talk about.

Dragonfly, I don't know you, but I have gone back and edited myself. Please review and clarify for me that I have made it clear that I have no intention to edit war. Though I reject your conclusion that my original edit insinuated an intent to edit war, I am willing to edit myself to make it clear. I continue to think that consensus only occurs when two opposing groups arrive at a solution to their conflict. That does not exist on the article nor will it ever exist until two sides cooperatively edit together. If you would look at my past edits on the article you will find that the vast majority of my edits are not in the article, but are in discussion. I attempt to reconcile the two sides. As a non-Catholic I am confident that I am objective though the current junta has accused me of being a meat puppet and a SPA. Yup, those guys make the environment wonderful for the rest of us and never stop to think about their own actions! It is either accept our way or take the highway. Thankfully, Wikipedia is a big highway and I can devote my efforts to other articles while they carry on. --^StormRider 19:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for rewording that -- I appreciate that you took the time to fix it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

But skip the personal attacks above, ok?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No problems. I just hope that it makes it clear of my objectives. Though it appears a little over-the-top, I think the current environment is so bad that those of us who feel differently than the select group currently editing the article that we must walk a very tight rope. Frankly, I don't know how this is going to improve with this kind of one sided scrutiny. It is too easy for distrust to percolate. This is just plain sad. --^StormRider 19:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything Storm Rider has said with regard to SandyGeorgia's behaviour. She should be appreciative of Storm Rider's courage to tell her she needs to improve. Many other editors have also told her both at the ANI and on her talk page and on their own talk pages. In the Catholic Church, when someone tells you about some fault, it is considered a kindness, not a personal attack. The reason for this is that some people do not know they are in error or at fault and will never know unless some kind person tells them. I did this and it just resulted in her getting worse. I am thankful that many others have told her as well because she needs to know. Wikipedia is not improving with the mean and impatient behaviour being tolerated by many admins and editors in positions of power like SandyGeorgia. They need to know so they can stop abusing their power and be better managers for the benefit of all. NancyHeise ^talk 18:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Silence can be construed as assent

I was going to leave the notice below for you but, upon reading the above discussion, it is clear that you do not assent. I'm sorry that is the case but you have the right to your own opinion. Given the unpleasant tone of the previous discussion, I will understand if you choose to remain silent. I will note your opposition on the article's Talk Page for you. --Richard S (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sarek and I have asserted that silence can be construed as assent and that therefore there is a defacto consensus for moving forward from UberCryxic's version, flaws and all. I assume your participation in editing Uber's version to be an implicit assent to using his version as the basis for future editing. Please make your position explicit here.

Please note that this is not meant to be an RFC on the IAR process that UberCryxic used to terminate the straw poll and plant his version over the previous one. I have my doubts about that. What I'm looking for is to determine whether there is a substantial sentiment against using Uber's version as the basis for future edits. (Well, in truth, Uber's version has long been superceded due to edits that have been made by multiple editors so we're not so much concerned with Uber's version as the current version of the article.)

--Richard S (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Many have indicated their disgust with Uber's tactics and his version. See my list at the bottom of this section here [6]. Because of this growing list, I believe we need an RFC. Sunray has asked me to put together wording for one. I will be posting this to his page sometime tonight. NancyHeise ^talk 18:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My silence is because I have been out of town on a business trip and only this evening looked at Wikipedia. I have just read your messages and have not looked at any articles yet. I suspect that you are correct, but I return home tomorrow evening and will then look at the articles and will then enter my position. Thank you all for being patient, willing to comment here, and your interest in gaining consensus. I will participate upon my return. Cheers. --^StormRider 04:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested to know if it is easy for you to find notification of the RFC because Xandar and I have complained to Sunray that notifications are inadequate and improper.NancyHeise ^talk 13:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it has not been. Because I have been very busy of late I do not find links to things very easily unless I go back and read everything. Given that I was in the hospital for two weeks last month and busy travel, I have been out of the loop. It would be easier if a link was left on an editor's home page so that there was no way of missing it. --^StormRider 14:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll link this to Sunray's talk page. I am sorry you were in the hospital, I hope it wasn't serious. I guess you must be better if you are travelling? NancyHeise ^talk 14:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I notice you have left comments on the issues on the RFC talk page. You do realise that comments on the issues should really be made on the RFC mainpage. Xandar 20:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church RfC

Input is welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. Sunray (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: NPAs on Joseph Smith Jr. page

I came here so as not to fan the flames on the article page. First off, let me acknowledge that you are correct in ignoring trolls and are doing a fine job of it thus far. I would like to point out two things that tripped me up when I came across them: First, the difference between an essay and a policy. For example the page you cited was an essay directing individuals on how to personally deal with trolls. It was not a policy to enforce so there's nothing to fall back on when we're confronted by others. It's just an opinion, not a rule. Second, the difference between observing advice and advocating for it. Even if we take the essay into account there is nothing in there that asks the reader to advocate others to a course of action. These are the two reasons why I warned before things got out of hand. I hope I haven't offended, I'm only trying to keep the article on track. Padillah (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Padillah. I was aware that it was only an essay and there is not policy or rule on how to deal with a troll. However, I have a long history with Duke and know his editing style intimately. Let me just say that in my opinion when he is present contention is brewing if not inflamed. He chooses to insult and be offensive in most edits. His disdain for the LDS religion and LDS in general is more than palpable, it is pervasive and rabid.

When I advocate ignoring him, I do so with the caveat that when he makes a constructive comment he should be engaged, but only at that point. In addition, if an essay is to be of value, it needs to be shared and discussed. Either there is wisdom in how to handle a troll or there is not. I tend to think that it is the best way to stop offensive behavior. If everyone ignored editors of his ilk, then Wikipedia would eventually become an even more welcoming environment for all.

Your efforts are recognized and appreciated. --^StormRider 16:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sealed Portion

Please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page Response

Thanks for your response on my talk page. I respect your unique knowledge on the topic. I’ve reviewed several related articles, but I’m still trying to vaguely understand the LDS position on the Holy Spirit's role. In your reply, you mentioned that the Spirit “…never departed or stopped influencing people to follow Christ and Christ's teachings…” . Although that sounds eloquent and true (not to mention very close to the Protestant view), I’m not sure if I understand your position. It seems counter intuitive to the idea of “complete apostasy”. Allow me to explain.

Basically, the tenants of Mormonism propose that the Great Apostasy was marked by a time of “complete falling away”. This falling away encompassed all humanity--^StormRider 16:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC) worldwide and all sects of “Christianity”, not just random groups. The process seemingly lasted 2000 years - actually getting worse and more perverse over time, until eventually no one possessed the “truth”. If that's your definition of "apostasy" how then did the Holy Spirit sustain God’s Truth throughout the ages? And if the Spirit did reach somebody, it must have ended there. Joseph Smith wasn't contacted by another Mormon teacher passing on knowledge. Supposedly "God", dissapointed and beleaguered at mankind, had to appear to Joseph as an apparition and relay the message Himself. Therefore, from my limited understanding of Mormonism, I see a broken line of succession (and God's promise of stewardship). I see the Apostolic Age followed by 1,830 years of “darkness” until Joseph Smith. HBCALI (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Great Apostasy was not a falling away from truth i.e. an absence of truth; it was the absence of the Keys of the Priesthood. The truth of Jesus Christ, him crucified and resurrected, not only was taught, but expanded throughout the world. That could not have been achieved without the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit. The LDS Church also teaches that the Apostasy also included the development of the doctrines of man. Does this make sense?

I would also disagree that religiosity became progressively worse. Apostasy is not the absence of truth, but the loss of authority and presence of the man's teachings i.e. that not inspired by God. We know the Holy Spirit was present simply by the tremendous examples found in the lives of the Saints, the Reformation, and Counter-Reformation and in so many other ways.

The importance of the restoration of the gospel was the the restoration of the Keys of the Priesthood. Ordinances or Sacraments in the orthodox sense, could be sealed both on earth and in heaven anew. This authority flowered, in the LDS belief system, in the return of temples. I apologize this is short, but I hope it begins to clarify the LDS position. Peace. --^StormRider 17:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it begins to clarify your position. Thanks for your reply. Obviously, I can’t easily reconcile the Mormon understanding of the “Priesthood”. However, I’m probably not alone – most non-LDS undoubtedly share my position. Perhaps another conversation...

However, I’m still struggling with your statement, “...Apostasy is not the absence of truth...”. That being said, if Mormon doctrine is considered “truth”, then the complete lack of Mormon teachings throughout the millennia would be the “absence of truth”. Do you see my point? If the Holy Spirit was still promoting “truth” (as you assert), where was the inspiration of Mormon doctrine? In fact, we have no record it was promoted prior to Joseph Smith. But as you mentioned, the Spirit was cultivating the Gospel through the Saints, the Reformation, ect. Only thing, I don’t see how any of these points are part of Mormon heritage. Arguably, these type of historical events are all based around “Orthodox / Protestant” preachers and theology – Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, ect.

Ultimately, since we’re both versed on the topic, we both understand that Mormon “truth” varies greatly from Orthodoxy’s “truth” – even on basic issues like Salvation, Jesus, and the Scriptures. We can’t forget that. So in your opinion, what “truth” was the Spirit sustaining and inspiring throughout the centuries? HBCALI (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

First, the concept of Keys of the Priesthood is not unique to LDS Theology, but it is the very basis of orthodox theology i.e. Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. LDS theology encompasses highly similar beliefs to Catholic and Orthodox that Jesus organized his church during his life and gave the Keys to Peter. Obviously, we differ in that at some point prior to the Council of Nicaea in 325 the Keys of authority were lost.

LDS Doctrine is centered on the reality of Jesus Christ. If you look at the opening of the Book of Mormon you see its sole purpose is the convincing of Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ.

Second, the truths that were not lost are the most significant: Jesus was the Son of God, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, bled in the Garden, was crucified, rose the third day, returned to his Father and sits on his right hand, will return one day, through his atoning blood he is the only way to return to the Father, and he is our Mediator with the Father. These truth were never lost and they remain, for most Christians, the foundation of their belief systems including LDS. I tend to reject definitions of basic truths that go beyond what I have just stated. The concept of the Trinity is not more significant to me than the reality that Jesus is the Christ. There is no belief more important or more basic than this.

There was never a complete lack of truth after Christ and this teaching is not LDS doctrine. The need for the restoration of the Gospel was the lack of the same organization Christ set up, the Keys of the Priesthood and a clarification of doctrine. I would disagree that the need for a restoration was absent among Christians; to the contrary, it was prevalent in the knowledge that the gifts of the Spirit was hampered or nearly absent. For example, John Wesley stated:

• "It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; . . . From this time they almost totally ceased, very few instances of the kind being found. The cause of this was not, as has been supposed, because there was no more occasion for them, because all the world was become Christians. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause of it was that the love of many, almost all Christians, so called, was waxed cold. The Christians had no more of the spirit of Christ than the other heathens. . . . This was the real reason the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian church because the Christians were turned heathens again, and only had a dead form left." - John Wesley's Works, Vol. VII, 89; 26-27.

LDS heritage is all that is true. We do not claim to possess all truth; in fact, we teach quite clearly that there is much truth in other churches and religions that we can learn from and that there will be many more truths revealed to us. We claim to be students of all truth; we honor truth and seek after it.

You bring up some differences that are very real. We reject the Trinity as a doctrine. Although I can understand the scriptural basis for it, I also know that it is obvious in the Bible that Jesus did not think of this doctrine as so important that he focused on it. I believe the LDS teaching that God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, are separate persons or beings is scriptural and stands on firm Biblical ground. Salvation? LDS believe that we are saved through Jesus Christ and following his commandments. We have an honest disagreement with all those who teach that we are saved by Grace alone. I think the Catholics and Orthodox would agree with our position on this.

If I could say anything to any other Christian it would be that there is more that binds us together because we each believe that Jesus is the Christ, our Savior and Redeemer. There is no teaching more important or greater than that. On that rock let us stand together against the works of the evil one. That is something we cannot forget.--^StormRider 16:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well spoken. Your reply makes sound, logical sense based on your unique standpoint. Of course, my knowledge of the LDS faith and it's practices is limited - mainly becuase I've never been Mormon and my interaction with them is limited.

However, I’ve noticed a prominent confusion when talking to LDS members regarding the terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic" being used interchangeably. As you may know, Evangelical Christians don’t consider themselves in agreement with Catholics – but they do consider themselves “Orthodox” (i.e. traditional values and teachings). Catholics are a group unto themselves – and they prefer it that way. In many respects, the larger whole of Protestantism doesn’t even consider them “Biblically based”. This is supported mainly by the aurgument that Catholicism teaches extra-biblical doctrine and adheres entirely to man-made creeds and Sacraments ( etc, ect…). So when mentioning “Christianity” as a whole, it can help to distinguish “Protestants” from “Catholics.” Not to say individual Catholics can't have a relationship with Jesus Christ, I'm just saying the denomination as whole is off-balance with the Bible.

All that said, I remember a time when I spent the better part of an afternoon discussing the basic differences between Mormonism and Protestantism with a Mormon Missionary. I gathered we have several. Some we can overlook and agree on, others that “divide the house”. On the surface, we are very, very similar. But beyond the top soil, we get into areas of huge scriptural differences.HBCALI (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

When I use the term Orthodox I am referring only to Eastern Orthodoxy. If I state orthodox (small "o"), then I am not referring to a church, but to established, majority-held doctrine(s). I do not use Catholic and Orthodox interchangeably because I see them as distinctly different groups. These two groups represent the vast majority of Christians in the world. I do understand the position of some groups within Protestantism regarding Catholicism as a whole, but because of their size alone, they set the standard of orthdoox doctrines for all Christianity. The rest of us just have minority positions.

There is a book by Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson entitled, "How Wide the Divide", that discusses the differences between Evangelical Christianity and Mormonism. If you haven't read that it might be worth the time. It discusses the differences in Scripture, God & Deification, Christ and the Trinity, and Salvation.

Do we have differences? Yes. However, I continue to believe that there is more that unites us than that which divides us. To me, Jesus Christ is so significant that all other discussions about doctrine become a distant second value in importance. --^StormRider 19:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the candid nature and gentleness of your answers. Often times, editors can take this sort of questioning very personally and become notably curt and offensive. You must understand, it’s not often that different faith groups can intelligently communicate with each other – Wikipedia talk pages help promote this dialog and ultimately the advancement of knowledge. Again, I appreciate your time.

That being said, we (Evangelicals and Mormons), have had several “irreconcilable differences” since the emergence of Mormonism at the turn of the century (excuse my attorney language). Despite my sincerest respect for your position, I disagree with you on this point. Without playing “Bible Tennis” (back and forth on verses), I just wanted to show an example of how the “divide” is too large to overlook. For example, check out these two basic issues:

"How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods…” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:333 (compare to Isaiah 43:10, 44:6 ).

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man... Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1973 ed., p. 346 (Compare to Psalm 90:2, Habakkuk 1:12, ect)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by HBCALI (talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with those teachings. A few things to understand about LDS Theology and our view of prophets. Joseph Smith stated that a prophet is only a prophet when he speaks as a prophet. At all other times he is just a man and speaks as such. When do we know he is speaking as a prophet and what he is saying is doctrine? His words are added to the LDS canon i.e. it becomes scripture.

Let's take BY's statement first, which is not doctrine of the LDS Church and how it may be accurate. First, we believe that God was always God. Jesus became a man just like us, but he was always a member of the Godhead. Was Jesus a sinful man? No, he lived a perfect life. What could Jesus do? Only what he saw the Father do (see John 5:19). There is so little written about this in a doctrinal position, that we know little. That which we know is based solely on scripture. It creates as more questions than it answers. What are Gods? We certainly believe that there has always been a Godhead (God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit) and they have always been Gods. Are we talking about anyone else. I suspect we are. The Bible, on a few occasions, refers to us as gods. (John 10:34 comes immediately to mind). However, in this context the writer can only be referring to us in the eternal sense and not today in mortality. It is our potential that is being referred to rather than our current state of sinful man. I think a good question to answer is the divinization of mankind possible? Is it doctrinal or found in scripture? I would be interested in your answer. LDS would say yes. Romans 8:17 states we are joint-heirs with Christ. We take that statement literally and believe that only through Christ and because of his Atoning sacrifice may we return to our Father in Heaven.

Additional statement by early church fathers that sound eerily familiar to LDS doctrine: "God became man so that man might become god", "the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through his transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."; "A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the incarnation of God, which makes man god to the same degree as God himself became man.... Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods." These statements all were made by early church fathers: St. Athanasius, St. Irenaeus, and St. Maximum the Confessor.

Joseph Smith's statement is your #2. LDS believe that Jesus is an exalted man just as the Father is an exalted man. However, this should be understood in the sense that they are both God and always have been. Did Jesus become only mortal when he came to earth? We believe that he did not; that he was a member of the Godhead even while he dwelled on earth. This statement does result in much that disturbs readers, LDS and non-LDS alike. But I believe that context should always be remembered. Students of Mormonism should never build their philosophies or understanding of it hinged on quotations of individuals, even though those quotations come from presidents of the Church. To understand our doctrine is to anchor their doctrine on the Standard Works, LDS scripture and nothing more.

Thank you for your kind questions. I enjoy a discussion of gospel topics and like you, I see little value in attempting to prove what is true. We each can give reasons in why we believe what we do, we can clarify our beliefs, and we can learn from one another. What I believe most fervently is that we both stand on the firm testimony that Jesus is the Son of God and through him and only him may we be saved. Peace. --^StormRider 18:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes, we can certainly agree that Jesus Christ is YHWH and Savior! Blessed be His Name from everlasting to everlasting (Baruch HaShem Adonai – יהוה)! Amen to that eternal assurance.

Truthfully, I’ve always despised the “politics” of organized religion – I think Jesus did too (i.e. with regard to the Jewish “leaders”). The Bible is clear that “…whoever believes in Him shall have eternal life (John 3:16).” I think the qualifier for eternal life is the true belief in the Son of God. However, we often forget the second part of that verse found at John 3:18, “…but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God”.

You see, from a Jewish mindset (Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, a Jewish scholar), the “name” encompassed the identity of the person. In reference to God, It’s often translated as “HaShem”. In that culture, “Name” usually meant authority and position (i.e. in the name of Cesear, in the name of God, ect.). In turn, I feel Christ was effectually saying, “You’re condemned if you don’t acknowledge who I really am – presently”. Which is why we must accept Christ for what the Scripture paints him to be – YHWH incarnate. I feel that’s part of understanding and accepting genuine Salvation. Otherwise, he could have easily just been any other prophet or holy-man. So then, I believe Jesus came to earth without the possibility of failure. He was more than just a “perfect man” – he was the eternal Word made flesh. This get’s difficult to understand and relay in the natural sense, because as Scripture says, these type of things are “Spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). Food for thought…

Anyways, to answer your question, no I don’t believe in the divination of mankind to godlike status. Further, I don't believe Scripture alone conveys this teaching, even though some have attempted to insert theology into the translation. It's certainly something that a Mormon would need to cross-reference with other LDS literature in order to form a "doctrinal" answer. Here's my thought: Although we’ll be made in the likeness of Christ (character, love, personality ect.) and we'll share as inheritors of His estate and position (Heaven, beloved of God, ect.) we’ll never be "as Jesus". Scripture records that the devil alone had that aspiration when he wanted to be “like the Most High” (Isaiah 14:14). I feel that's a dangerous path - God alone is God. Yes, in Christ we're God's friend, but I think Scripture clearly teaches that we must completely submit to Him (in this life and the next) as Master and Lord, never trying to be His equal. Adam and Eve were deceived with the same lie. "Eat the fruit and you'll be like God". What happened when they believed that? We divide at this point. I'm positive Scripture dosen't teach that mankind will have a Spirit family (eternally married with a heavenly wife and kids), or rule as God's equilvilant and vicar in a celestial kingdom somewhere. Only Mormon sources present these practices.

On a "rabbit trail" subject, Scripture does call us “gods”, but for good reason. I think it's intended to reveal how the pagan world would soon view believers. Let me explain (this is just me talking – not church doctrine). Through the power of Christ in our lives, we will have the supernatural ability to rise above the world and overcome tribulation in remarkable ways – sometimes “supernaturally” . With the enabling, gifts and power of the Holy Spirit, we can perform miracles, accomplish great deeds and do wondrous things that could seem “godlike” to the pagan world. But at the end of the day, we’re mortal. Only One God is and ever will be truly divine. That’s the best way I can try to answer the question and still stay close to the topic (without playing Bible Tennis). —Preceding unsigned comment added by HBCALI (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We become sons of God, joint-heirs with Christ. The Bible calls us gods. I don't get too hung up on the definition of what being a god is or what a god does. What I know is that whatever we do as his joint-heirs or sons will be to glorify his name. He will always be our God throughout eternity. The concept of being gods and creating our own worlds with spirit offspring is not doctrinal and is not found in LDS canon. Several LDS leaders have have postulated about what they think being a god is, but none of it has been canonized. I suspect you might even find a great number of LDS who think that is what being a "god" is and that may be one of the ways we might glorify God for eternity. However, nothing has been clearly defined and that works for me. It also works for me to have individuals offer ideas to contemplate what we might be doing during our eternal life with God. In fact, it sounds more interesting than what any other church offers. Floating on clouds, having wings, playing harps, and singing for eternity does not sound accurate or fun. Regardless, if that is what God needs for us to do, then I will do whatever He wants.

If you are saying that God the Father and Jesus Christ are one essence, but two distinct persons then you might need to define essence. I have never understood the term when dealing with two individuals. Most Christians focus on One God found in three difference persons. LDS focus on three different persons and one Godhead. LDS are comfortable calling themselves monotheists because they pray to the same God that Jesus prayed to. They would also be comfortable being called polytheistic IF, and only if, that term was applied to calling God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit Gods.

You may be going a little overboard on the "name" concept. The name does not save, but the being behind the name saves all. Jesus is very clear that we must believe in him. If you are using YHWH as a proper moniker, I don't have a problem. But, I would also be just as comfortable with Jehovah. I have met many others who emphasize the importance of knowing the proper name of Jesus Christ, but I am not sure that I have ever met someone who emphasized that the name saved rather than the being, Jesus.

When the Bible calls us gods, I have never felt it did so because of what pagans would think of Jesus' disciples. IMHO, the Bible says it to that His followers would know that they are called to be holy; to emulate the example that Christ gave us; to be sons and daughters of the Most High. It is the gift that Jesus offers each of us who follow him; willing to take upon us his name and be his disciples. --^StormRider 21:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Organized religion can present many problems. Yet, I believe that while Jesus was on the earth he set up his structure for us to follow; it was a definite organization and social structure. It is what he set up and I am willing to follow in it.

Thanks for your response. I agree that Jesus re-established a definite organization and social structure in the wake of the Jewish system. Again, these are just my opinions – I’m only a student of Scripture. I certainly don’t want to claim I have all the answers; I can only speak from my personal belief and respective faith. Regardless, most of these concepts have always been up for interpretation. They’ve been the debate material of “theologians” for centuries.

Yes, just to clarify – YHWH is simply my reference for “Jehovah” - the God of Israel. My understanding is based largely on a Hebrew background. So naturally, I refrain from using the word Jehovah since it’s not used in the Hebrew language, literature or canon. Not that it really matters, I don’t want to give the impression I get “over-concerned” with names . It’s Just a preference I have because the tetragrammaton is found in the most original manuscripts (and it helps when talking to a Jewish audience). I think the LDS consider Jesus the same as “Jehovah” in the Old Testament, correct? I know for certain the Jehovah Witness think otherwise.

I think we agree the Bible teaches that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God – established. But in our natural mind, it’s hard to fully grasp this Spiritual concept. Whether they form a “Godhead” of three separate men, or somehow form a single material being (united by One Spirit and called by One name), that’s up for discussion - as it has for centuries.

I dont want to get hung-up on names - I know some faiths place way too much into this. I do think however that a proper understanding of Biblical Culture and "names" is important to proper context and theology. For example, the name “Jesus” is translated from the Aramaic / Hebrew word “Yesh'ua”, which really isn’t even a name as we understand it. “Yeshua” is simply a Hebrew word meaning “God is Salvation”. So really it’s more of a description of God rather than a name like “Bill” or “Bob”. Exodus also records that God’s name (as given to Moses) is “Ayer Asher Ayer איה אשר איה” (I AM THAT I AM). Again, another description – not a specific name as we would understand in Western Culture. In fact, the Bible never gives us a distinct name for God, only decriptions of His personage - which the Father, Son and Spirit seem to share equally and eternally. Consider also that these desriptions are usually written in the Hebrew singular (i.e. King of Israel not Kings of Israel)

No argument however, the Bible declares all of them (Father, Son, Spirit) are Divine, share everything in common and are absolute. But we’re not dealing with “gods”(as the Ancient Greeks may suppose). In effect, we’re dealing with One God, absolutely unique, unchanging and eternal. Very intriguing… —Preceding unsigned comment added by HBCALI (talk • contribs) 16:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As a non-Trinitarian I would say that the Bible is clear that they are separate, distinct, individuals. LDS would also say they are unique in the sense that they are God, but their desire is to allow us to become like them in holiness and righteousness. Jesus said it best when he prayed that we could be one as he and the Father are one. I believe this commitment to strict monotheism is an outgrowth of how the early church dealt with the divinity of Jesus. If Jesus were divine, and he was the Son of God, then there would have to be two gods and that is unacceptable. How did they get around it? Essence came up to answer the incomprehensible. Jesus and God the Father share the same essence and are thus one God, but are distinct, separate persons. LDS don't have a concept of essence to explain how they are one in purpose, one in thought, and one in holiness, but would understand that when you have seen the Son you will have also seen the Father because they are so much alike. Yet, they remain two separate, distinct persons.

LDS are amazed that God the Father, through his Son, Jesus seeks to share their holiness with us. We are imperfect creatures, yet through Christ we are made perfect and will stand by his side and be joint-heirs.

I believe we share a similar, if not exact same, understanding of names for Jesus. He is Wonderful, Counselor, Almighty God, Prince of Peace; together we can worship him with many names, but Jesus is the one I hold most dear. Thank you for your continued conversation. His Peace be upon your always, --^StormRider 20:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your conversation. I’m always eager to learn about new perspectives and ideas. I want to thank you for being patient and kind with my questions / answers. I appreciate the exchange of information as we learn more about our respective beliefs. Although I adhere to the basic tenets behind the Trinitarian view, I openly admit, the idea of the “Trinity” is a huge concept that remains elusive in several respects. Any honest scholar would say the same – no one in history has been able to define it perfectly. We have great analogies, but no concrete “ah-hah” moment that makes an unarguable case. However, minded like an attorney, I always try to look at the situation from a unique position. Instead of simply “buying” a story without pondering it, I play advocate and consider all angles. I remove myself from a bias position and consider the story from another perspective.

You see, I almost feel the concept of the “Trinity” is so vast and so inexpressible, that it couldn’t have been “man-made”. Let me explain. Throughout history, no man (not one) has been able to interpret the mystery of the Trinity fully. In contrast, based on Scriptural evidence, no one has been able to fully refute it either. So then, I would conclude it was too grand a proposal to be created by “man”. The natural man can’t define it – just as natural man didn’t create it. Do you see my reasoning? You don’t have to agree, but do you see my point?

Any concept or material thing created by man can be defined. But most things that originate with God can’t be defined – just consider His creation, we can’t explain many things that we know are real. As such, God works “outside the box” or our understanding every moment of our lives. The inability to define something doesn’t necessarily change the reality.

Here’s where I think the LDS depart from “Orthodox” thinking (based on my understanding). Judeo Christians believe Jesus has always been Almighty God from eternity. Exalted Deity wasn’t something he had to achieve. We don’t believe in a hierarchy (the Father didn’t come first, Jesus second, ect). During his time on earth, we assert that Jesus (YHWH), laid aside His “eternal glory” and took the form of a servant (mankind), being made like us in every way (born under the Law, a human with weaknesses, ect.). However, He maintained His Deity - never ceasing to be Immanuel, "God with us". His glory was simply veiled during his brief time among us. I can explain my view on several issues, (his prayers to the Father, his resurrection, ect.) but maybe not in this thread…

So, here’s the mystery of “Trinitarians”. If you believe the Father, Son and Spirit are Almighty God, eternal, uncreated and never-ceasing, then no other definition for God seems to work. So you can see how our basic understanding can vary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HBCALI (talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can see your point; it is an intereting perspective that has merit. Throughout history so much as revolved around this central issue of the Trinity or Godhead. Too much blood has been spilt to demand it acceptance. Yet, for all the importance man has given it, Jesus apparently did not deem it so important as to explain it or present it as a vital doctrine. Why do you think Jesus focused on other things in his teachings?

As a LDS I believe that God the Father was always God the Father; there was never a time when he was not the Father. I believe the Son was always the Son. The Holy Spirit has always been the Holy Spirit. They have always existed without beginning or end. I also believe Jesus came to this world and gained a physical body. For some reason, God has placed an enormous importance on the resurrection when body and spirit are reunited in a perfected state. Why do you think a physcial body is so important in the eternities?

There is much we can learn about God when attempting to grasp his nature. In our search for understanding, may we never place so much importance on our search that we deny those others who seek to follow Jesus as their Savior while having a different understanding of his nature. For me, Christians, those who follow Jesus and acknowledge him as their Lord and King, have too much in common. We can all search for truth, but never with so much zealousness that we exhibit a spirit of contention or rile others who may hear us or read our words. There are far too many anti-(insert Catholic, Mormon, JW, any other Christian group). Your approach is much cleaner and more in keeping with the Spirit of Christ. We may each state what we believe is true, but never in a way as to disrespect the other. Thank you. --^StormRider 16:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note: If you have any questions about unique beliefs found in Orthodoxy and/or Judaism, please feel invited to consider me a resource. I'd be happy to shed light on topics as they emerge (whether you find them in Wikipedia articles, talk pages or just have a personal question). HBCALI (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to hear about the SPI. I too think the claim was groundless and if I might say, somewhat malicious. In either case, there was no reason to post the announcement on your talk page. Oh well, at least your cleared…

Changing the topic, I have another question I want to ask an LDS member. I thought you could help. Mormons always quote John 10:16 as the foundation for LDS teachings, “…And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd”. LDS I’ve encountered suppose Jesus was referring strictly to the “Ancient American People” in this passage. But I’m not sure I agree with that. Maybe you could share with me your understanding?

Here’s an alternate view from a Judeo perspective: Contextually in this verse, Jesus was speaking directly to an audience composed almost entirely of Jews. In turn, we know that the Hebrews were God’s chosen people – the sheep of His pasture. But the Messiah came to share and extend the Gospel message of God’s favor to the Gentiles (the "other sheep" not of the "Jewish fold"). Until Jesus, Gentiles were a group excluded from the inheritance and blessings of Israel. I believe Christ was saying that through Him, Gentiles and Jews would together become “One Fold” with “One Shepherd”. Essentially, Jesus was including all mankind into the inheritance of God – His presence was no longer reserved only for the Jewish nation. The Apostle Paul says something similar when he calls the Gentiles “grafted branches”. Not to mention the Bible is saturated with verses & phrophecy that identify these two named groups (Gentiles and Jews) being joined together under One Messiah. Apart from the loose application that “Ancient Americans” were by definition Gentiles, how does John 10:16 absolutely define Mormon teachings? In effect, Ancient Americans were no more “Gentiles” than any other non-Jew throughout history. Why do you interpret (based on John) that Christ positively meant that he would visit Meso-America with the Gospel? HBCALI (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern about the SPI. I agree the claim was baseless; that is part of the reason I was so dissappointed with the accusation. The fact that others supported the claim was dissappointing. However, I have been around for several years and this is the first time I have experienced such a procedure. I guess there is a first for everything.

I agree that an alternate interpretation is feasible, but I would still submit that your proposal does not seem logical. Jesus was adamant that he came for the Jews and the Jews alone. I do not think this verse is limited to, or "strictly for" the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. I would only support only that they were included as part of the people that would hear his voice to insure those people heard him just as the Jews around Jerusalem heard his voice.

It is doubtful that he was prophesying about the Gentiles in such an arcane manner. He came for the Jews and his committment was clear; only the Jews would hear his voice or be his focus. All others were put aside during his sojourn on earth.

This should not be interpreted as a lack of undestanding that the gospel would go to every nation. Jesus gave the Great Commission to his apostles and disciples and it continues to be fulfilled by a multitude of missionaries from a diverse group of denominations and churches. I agree that there will be grafted branches and those branches will be fully adapted to the root of the House of Israel. I would also agree that there are numerous verses that address this grafting process and the fact that the Gentiles would be made one with the House of Israel, but I think this one verse does mean something different. It fits within the Lord's stated purpose of focusing on the House of Israel wherever they are found in the world.

The people of the Book of Mormon were from Jerusalem (for the most part) and were members of the House of Israel. It would not be accurate to state they were Gentiles.

In stating all of the above, my intention is not to offend, but to clarify the LDS position. God bless, --^StormRider 04:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no problem at all. I enjoy our conversations. I replied to your post on my (talk) page. Thanks for your visit. If you think of something else within Orthodoxy or Mormonism you'd like to discuss, I'm open. Interested to hear your views / responses. I'll be traveling soon, so my reply might take longer than usuall. But I'll follow-up when I get back. Thanks.HBCALI (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Brigham Young's internal mental state on hearing of the Mountain Meadows Massacre

Please share your thoughts at Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre#Reading Young's mind. Let's see if we can come up with phrasing that does not claim accurate insight into someone's mental state in 1857. Regards. Edison (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Storm Rider for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This notice is a little late; I already found out about it because Ktr101 posted a notice on my page, which I have removed. I was very surprised that a notice would be placed without any verification. Suffice it to say that I am not very happy. Why is the Check User taking so much time? I want it verified that I am not using a sockpuppet and that I only use this account to edit Wikipedia. Can you speed up the CU?--^StormRider 18:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Storm Rider, the case has been now been closed, and you were found to be unrelated (although I guess that's not exactly news to you). Just wanted to say sorry for any stress that the SPI case has caused you, please know that your privacy was not at any point violated. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions, kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I am more bothered by the process. Having a notice placed on my page that I am suspected of abusing one or more accounts was offensive. Then the I felt the case was so very flimsy. Instead of issuing notices and listing the suspicions of an editor, would it not be better to just facilitate the process? If there is a concern, just use Check User and then editors know if there is a problem or not. In my case, it would have been immediately clear there was no relationship. The editor with the suspicion would have been mollified and the accused would have never know about it. If evidence can be so flimsy, then omit the case building because it is obvious the bar is so low to qualify for a search, it is meaningless. Does this make sense?

In society the mere mention of a suspicion can affect one's reputation. To have any suspicion of my actions is a stain I would prefer to limit as much as possible. --^StormRider 19:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Typically cases are only endorsed if there is sufficient evidence to justify doing so. There would be many issues associated with granting a check to anyone who requests it. Firstly, checkuser requests get backlogged enough as it is, clerk approval exists primarily to help thin out cases that are obviously frivolous, or where a check is not necessary. There are various other problems that would arise from just granting a check to whoever requests it (I don't really want to go into all the specifics right now, it's saturday night . But, what you seem to be suggesting is something akin to a checkuser system that would just churn out {{confirmed}}, {{likely}}, {{unrelated}}, etc. at request, which could be abused quite easily). Furthermore, case building is vital to SPI cases, checkuser is not infallible, and behavioral evidence should always be considered, completing omitting evidence from cases would not be healthy. Although I'm sorry that you've had a bad experience of SPI, I assure you that the process is generally very successful, and even in this case, the outcome has been constructive (sock farm uncovered, you cleared of any guilt).

Which brings me on to the next point: in terms of reputation, I don't think any damage is done by being suspected but then cleared, as you have been (although I thoroughly appreciate that it's stressful and frustrating). In this case you've been found to be completely free of fault, so I don't think you'll experience any tarnishing. :)

Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Joyeux anniversaire (un peu en retard)!

I saw from here that it's been six years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Denomination Talk

I removed my last post since I felt it might be viewed as augmentative. Although I never intend for such appearances, it’s inevitable sometimes. Either way, not sure my discussion would have amounted to much benefit anyway. Just wanted to stay honest with my editions – especially to user talk pages. Thanks.

Missouri Exec Order 44

Please read my comments there in response to your accusation of an improper move. Also keep in mind that MXO44 did not lead to a mass extermination or genocide, which makes the title "Extermination order" misleading and frankly a POV violation Purplebackpack89 02:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Global block to my IP address

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Storm Rider (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

global block — I have been an editor for a number of years. I recently moved to Abu Dhabi and have been using my office internet in the evenings to edit Wikipedia. Out of the blue I get a global block; could someone please explain? I would like an explanation how this specific IP address was targeted?

Accept reason:

WP:IPBE granted. jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't help without the IP. I can notify a checkuser if you're uncomfortable pasting the entire block message here. Kuru (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

We get a surprising amount of vandalism from Abu Dhabi IP addresses, that's all. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jp. I appreciate your prompt attention. -^StormRider 09:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)