Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:18, 2 September 2007

I will respond to any inquires placed here by placing a message on this page. If I asked you a question on your user page, you can respond here or on your own page.

Dick Wirthlin

Thanks for uploading the image for Dick Wirthlin, expanding on passages, and adding a source. Whew that's a lot! :-). Feel free to consider yourself the chief editor. I filled in the page mostly because I was interested in another entity - Wirthlin Group/Worthlin Worldwide and collected material that didn't really belong in that article. I probably won't do much more on the article.

BTW - Newbie question - when I was doing research I saw a few images of Dick Wirthlin but was afraid to use them. How did you go about checking to see if it was OK to use the image? Egfrank 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jackson, Co. Missouri and Garden of Eden citations

I asked this question earlier in the page, but apparently you didn't see my question yet, because you haven't responded. I wrote:

Wait a minute. Official LDS belief is not either that the Garden of Eden was in what is now Jackson County, Missouri. What exactly does the "ref. cited"* say? 69.152.175.14 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• (Historical Record, Jenson Vol. 7&8, p. 438; Life of Heber C. Kimball, Whitney, p. 219 (1888 ed.)

In other words, what does it say on page 438 and page 219 of two obscure volumes not available to 99.9 percent of Misplaced Pages readership (and certainly not immediately).

What do the citations say? Merely mentioning the sources doesn't prove or even substantiate anything. I'm giving you the opportunity to literally cite and quote your sources, if you don't, your probably-erroneous addition to Jackson County, Missouri needs to be removed or modified, in order to reflect that in official LDS doctrine, Jackson county is not considered the site of the biblical Garden of Eden. 69.152.175.14

Sorry, I didn't see this inquiry earlier and now I see it's been there for awhile. I'll have to go dig out the sources; I have copies of the relevant info somewhere, not the actual volumes. You're right that they are obscure, but if I remember correctly they are persons who remember Joseph Smith saying that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County. What's tipped you off that this may not be so?

Give me a little time and I will get back to you after I can find my copies. Thanks, SESmith 00:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Of LDS upbringing, I've lived in Jackson County Missouri for more than three decades. While there is plenty of interest or belief among LDS here in the Adam-ondi-Ahman doctrine, local Saints do not highlight Jackson County as the probable location of Garden Eden in the past, more rather as the location of a New Jerusalem in the future. The former is a rumor, the latter is official LDS doctrine. I've never heard a local LDS mention that "Joseph Smith taught Jackson County was the site of the Garden of Eden." I really am curious what the cited excerpts state...a lot of LDS around here will be interested if they aren't vague and insubstantial. 70.244.245.101 00:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Until I can get back to you, here is a quote of more recent vintage which alleges that this is clearly a doctrine of the church:

"In accord with the revelations given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, we teach that the Garden of Eden was on the American continent located where the city of Zion, or the New Jerusalem will be built. When Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden, they eventually dwelt at a place called Adam-ondi-Ahman, situated in what is now Daviess County, Missouri." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3:74)

The D&C indicates that the New Jerusalem will be built in Jackson County, ergo, the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County. Ultimately, this is probably a better source to cite than the more obscure ones. SESmith 01:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet more:

"The spot chosen for the Garden of Eden was Jackson Country, in the state of Missouri, where Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam and his associates, who came with him for the express purpose of peopling this earth." (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 10:235)

Brigham Young to Orson Hyde: "You have been both to Jerusalem and Zion, and seen both. I have not seen either, for I have never been in Jackson County. Now it is a pleasant thing to think of and to know where the Garden of Eden was. Did you ever think of it? I do not think many do, for in Jackson County was the Garden of Eden. Joseph has declared this, and I am as much bound to believe that as to believe that Joseph was a prophet of God." (Journal History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, March 15, 1857).

Do I still really need to dig up the cites? There seems to be ample evidence made by a variety of sources, including two former presidents of the Church.

Third former president:

"Again President Young said Joseph the Prophet told me that the garden of Eden was in Jackson Co Missouri, & when Adam was driven out of the garden of Eden He went about 40 miles to the Place which we Named Adam Ondi Ahman, & there built an Altar of Stone & offered Sacrifice." (Wilford Woodruff journal 30 March 1873; quoted in Waiting for Word’s End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, ed. by Susan Staker, 1993, p. 305)

I'm not going to bother finding my other quotes.

SESmith 02:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And again: "That is the position of the Latter-day Saints today, with respect to the much-discussed location of the Garden of Eden. Adam, after his expulsion from the Garden of Eden, lived in the vicinity of the great Missouri and Mississippi rivers. As his descendants multiplied, they would naturally settle along the fertile and climatically acceptable river valleys. When the flood came in the days of Noah, the Mississippi drainage must have increased to a tremendous volume, quite in harmony with the Biblical account. Noah’s ark would be floated on the mighty, rushing waters, towards the Gulf of Mexico. With favorable winds, it would cross the Atlantic to the Eastern continents. There the human race, in its second start on earth, began to multiply and fill the earth. The location of the Garden of Eden in America, and at Independence, Missouri, clears up many a problem, which the Bible account of Eden and its garden has left in the minds of students.” (John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations (1960), pp. 396-397)

Additionally: "The early brethren of this dispensation taught that the Garden of Eden was located in what is known to us as the land of Zion, an area for which Jackson County, Missouri, is the center place." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (2d ed.) (1966), "Adam-ondi-Ahman")

You're going to have to do better than simply alleging it is a "rumor". Seems pretty widespread to me.

SESmith 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I have found the original quote from the two original citations in question , if you think they are still necessary. The Jenson one is a quote from Heber C. Kimball, and the same quote is reproduced in the Life of Heber C. Kimball book. The quote says: "From the Lord, Joseph learned that Adam had dwelt on the land of America, and that the Garden of Eden was located where Jackson County now is."

Both quotes were slightly miscited, which I will be correcting.

SESmith 02:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

One final citation. This one is great if you are looking for a good summary: Bruce A. Van Orden, “I Have a Question: What do we know about the location of the Garden of Eden?”, Ensign, Jan. 1994, 54–55

Looks like a bit more than a rumor to me!

- SESmith 03:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The cite from the 1994 Ensign magazine is excellent, and readily available online...I vote you link to THAT in the article for Jackson County, Missouri. “I Have a Question: What do we know about the location of the Garden of Eden?”, Ensign, Jan. 1994, 54–55 70.244.245.101 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 70.244.245.101 21:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

followup: Awesome citation you added at Jackson County, Missouri (reproduced below). Incidentally, I asked two lifelong LDS members who have lived in Jackson County for more than three decades if they knew that Joseph Smith evidently considered Jackson County as the site of the biblical Garden of Eden, and neither had heard that. They had only heard about Adam-ondi-Ahman as a site Adam & Eve reputedly visited after the expulsion from the garden. Your work on this topic (adding the info at Misplaced Pages and then substantiating it) is more valuable than I think you realized. By the way, feel free to modify or delete this entire discussion if you feel it is unnecessary, or that it may discourage other contributors from discussing other topics here. 70.244.245.101 16:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

# ^ Bruce A. Van Orden, “I Have a Question: What do we know about the location of the Garden of Eden?”, Ensign, Jan. 1994, 54–55; see also Andrew Jenson, Historical Record, 7:438-39 (1888); Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 219 (1967); Heber C. Kimball, "Advancement of the Saints", Journal of Discourses 10:235 (1863); Journal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Brigham Young to Orson Hyde, March 15, 1857 (1830- ); Wilford Woodruff, Susan Staker (ed.), Waiting for the World to End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 305 (1993); John A. Widtsoe, G. Homer Durham (ed.), Evidences and Reconciliations, 396-397 (1960); Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 19-20

Susquehanna River

If you add a good citation, I'd have no problems with you moving your recent edits in Susquehanna River, concerning the origins of LDS, out of the Trivia section into the Historic importance section. You should provide a citation in any case. --J Clear 13:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Great--I've provided a citation from the official magazine of the LDS Church, which is long and fairly encompassing of all the statements made I've made in the Trivia section; but the article is available online, so it's a good one to use. I'll leave it to you to move the information, as I'm not that familiar with the article. SESmith 04:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal

I just noticed that you added a category to the 2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal page titled Category:Mormonism-related_controversies and I was wondering how that article is related to Mormonism. I realize it's Utah, but I don't see how there is a connection between the bid scandal and anything to do with the Mormon church. Nowhere in the article does it mention the church, nor even the religion of any of those involved in the scandal. I'm tempted to delete the category, but I wanted to understand your reasoning first. --Eric Bekins 05:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was in error. It will be removed. -SESmith 05:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Prophet, seer, and revelator

On 15 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prophet, seer, and revelator, 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} 17:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

George P. Lee

I understand what you're getting at with the "first from their cultural group" thing. I think it might make more sense as a template to include with each GA's article; or maybe a separate section in the article. --TrustTruth 16:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. -SESmith 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

God Makers vs. Godmakers

I noticed that you moved The God Makers II to The Godmakers II. I've always seen a lot of confusion about the titles to those films and their associated books, and I often see them spelled both ways. The film itself actually says The God Makers II in its intro, which I verified on Google Video here: . This is the reason that I named the stub that way when I created it. Regards, Bochica 19:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK--go with what the actual movie says. I think I found a reference to the movie on Ed Decker's website and it was spelled the other way. Not that Ed Decker is oh-so accurate in all things, we must remember...Thanks.-SESmith 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I found pictures of the covers of the books God Makers and God Makers II online, and they also use the two-word form. I suspect that the first movie will be the same, but I'll check to be sure. I'll fix up the disambiguation page as well. There is a book called Godmakers (one word), but it's a science fiction book. After watching GMII a few too many times, I don't think I'd believe Decker if he told me that the sun was going to rise tomorrow...I sure don't know what church he was describing in that movie! :-)Bochica 01:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. About the research--awesome. Sounds like the movies were consistent, it's just Decker's website that was in error. I've demonstrated why it's always good to get a second source. -SESmith 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Young Ladies' Department of the Cooperative Retrenchment Association

I just put a db-empty tag on Young Ladies' Department of the Cooperative Retrenchment Association, but I had a quick look at your contributions and it dawned on me that it might have been meant as a redirect page? Flowerpotman -_{wot I've done} 01:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was. I've fixed it. Thanks. -SESmith 01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem :o) Flowerpotman -_{wot I've done} 01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dan Jones (1810-1862)

Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, Dan Jones (1810-1862), for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Misplaced Pages:Did you know. You can see the "hook" for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on April 19 where you can improve it if you see fit. Regards, howcheng {chat} 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

On 23 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dan Jones (1810-1862), 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} 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Thank you for your civility on the issue of NPOV and desctiptive terms. That's one thing that's been lacking on the talk page for a while. I'm glad we could come to a better concensus. JRN 01:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Support Move

You have been active in improving The Church of Jesus Christ's page on wikipedia. McKay has requested people in favor or opposing a move of the page give their reasoning and take a side. Since you have been so helpful and active your thoughts would be very pertinent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.118.246.192 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Arch

Do you know how to archive certain topics that have long since past discussion on The Church of Jesus Christ's page. Its getting pretty messy. I am honestly afraid of attempting a move and deleting entire sections by accident through the copy/paste method. Something tells me many would not be happy with that result haha.Jcg5029 02:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, no I have never done that before. There's probably instructions somewhere in the Help Section. If you end up deleting something you could always just revert it. I don't think anything is ever gone forever. -SESmith 08:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Boston Massachusetts Temple picture

Thanks for uploading Image:Bostontemple.JPG, a great picture of the Boston Massachusetts Temple. I hope you don’t mind, but I altered it slightly, skewing it so that the lines of the spire appear closer to vertical. Jaksmata 15:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine; I noticed it was a bit crooked when I posted it, but I just didn't have the patience to work with it at the time. I thought it was better than nothing. -SESmith 21:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Ensign

You have copies of the ensign???? You are the MAN! How would one go about obtaining a copy of that? That is awesome and pretty much made my day.Jcg5029 12:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just realized that you quoted The Ensign from the Reorganized History Book, either way great snag.Jcg5029 13:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah—I don't know where one would get an actual copy of The Ensign. There's quite a long quote from it in old the RLDS history book though, which is available online. --SESmith 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Standing

Can you provide a source for “Standing” being Joseph Standing's middle name?

I’m preparing a major revision of this page and, with the exception of FamilySearch.org, I’ve found no mention of his middle name in published sources.

The history for your minor edit says;

middle name was "Standing" too -- Joseph Standing Standing (his mother's maiden name was also Standing.

This may be accurate but it is odd enough that it needs a source. FamilySearch.org gives him the middle initial of "S" on some entires and his middle name as "Standing" on others. Is this your source?

Thank you,

Matthew R. Lee 23:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't recall what the source was. I usually don't use familysearch.org, so I don't think I got it from there. I probably just dredged it up from the back of my mind, having read it somewhere before. I will think on it. -SESmith 23:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vacation

As of 11 May 2007, SESmith is on vacation in Greenland (woo hoo!), and won't be able to respond to any posts made here for some time. -SESmith 23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You're on vacation in Greenland yet you're still editing Misplaced Pages articles? Turn off your computer and go outside! ;) --TrustTruth 00:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's too damn cold. I'm actually just on a boat now. I discovered the ship has Internet access. Go figure. -SESmith 00:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 12 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oliver Granger, 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.

--Carabinieri 22:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

No problem. I'm no fan of that kind of aggression, either, and in months of having that article and talk page watchlisted, I've never once seen you do anything except in the very best faith. There's no call for some uninvolved person to start throwing around epithets at the first sign of being disagreed with. --Masamage ♫ 23:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.

I feel like this article should include burial location, not just in the Death of Joseph Smith, Jr. article. I'd add it myself, but I can't exactly make sense of where he actually was intered. Is the Smith Homestead in Palmyra or Nauvoo? You seem to know what you're talking about regarding the LDS-movement, perhaps you could add it if you agree? Cornell Rockey 12:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know it's as described in Death of Joseph Smith, Jr.. Coffins (Joseph & Hyrum's) were buried at marked site in Nauvoo, but were filled with sandbags. Actual bodies were buried under Nauvoo House, then later were moved to underneath a different house in Nauvoo. Actual site was lost with time. In 1928, RLDS president ordered excavation to find bodies. Bodies were found in Nauvoo, and were placed in coffins and buried at marked site in Nauvoo where the sandbags were originally buried. -SESmith 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Added a snippet. Do take a look at it. Cornell Rockey 01:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

2006 CHI

Thanks for updating the LDS Church article with the 2006 version of the Church Handbook of Instructions. These are difficult to find. I have access to the 1998 version, but do you know any libraries or other sources that have the 2006 or other versions? I know that the University of Utah has some of them. COGDEN 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right they are hard to come by—the LDS Church side-stepped having to submit copies to the Library of Congress and other national libraries by not registering for an ISBN for the 2006 version. I'm not aware of any libraries that have the 2006 copy, but I can't say that I've searched them out. My copy comes from a friend who works in the leadership of the LDS Church who had an "extra copy", and thought I might be interested. (He's not exactly a by-the-book type leader.) I haven't seen it appear on-line yet like the 1998 version did, and I believe the church would probably fight any attempts to have it placed there as a violation of its copyright. If you'd ever like anything looked up until you can find a copy, I'd be glad to do so for you. -SESmith 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I probably will. I assume there isn't that much different from the 1998 version. The Library of Congress actually does have copies of both the 1998 and 2006 versions. I think the church still has to submit a copy whenever they register a copyright. But I've looked at lots of library catalogues, and other than BYU (where you have to have special permission to read it), I can only find the 2006 version in the Washington D.C. LOC. I doubt they would let it go in an interlibrary loan. The University of Utah does have the 1998 version (and many previous versions), however, but it doesn't look like they have the 2006 version yet. I'm sure it will get there eventually, although I only go to Utah once or twice a year. COGDEN 22:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, that's interesting. I knew the LOC had the 1998 version but I didn't know about the 2006 one. I assumed the reason for the lack of ISBN was to avoid submitting it there, but there must be other reasons. I also thought in the U.S. copyright automatically attached to any original writings that are produced. Do you have to "register" the copyright if you ever intend on enforcing it?

If it's any consolation to you, it's true that I have found few differences between the two editions. Most of the changes are things that changed in the church that most everyone is aware of anyway; changes in terminology, changes to how programs are structured, etc. (E.g., changing the name of Area Authority to Area Seventy; areas in North America supervised directly by Presidency of Seventy; creation of ward missionaries to replace stake missionaries; etc.) Once in awhile a change will pop out that you didn't notice before (e.g., the deletion of "forcible" from the phrase "forcible sexual abuse" in the discipline section in defining "serious transgressions"). One change I'm particularly proud of finding—and this will give you an idea of the kind of LDS Church-junkie geek that I am—is a person who lives in a district without a patriarch now receives a recommend to receive a patriarchal blessing from his or her branch president and mission president, as opposed to the branch president and district president.-SESmith 22:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to register for copyrights to attach, but there are huge advantages, and it's a prerequisite before you file a copyright infringement suit. But to register and sue somebody, you have to deposit copies in the Library of Congress. (That's why the church will never sue anybody for copying the Endowment ceremony.) The part about the patriarchal blessing recommends is interesting, because I'd assume mission presidents were too busy with more important things than being the gatekeeper for patriarchal blessings. I wonder what happened to prompt that. COGDEN 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Perhaps the change was to make the process mirror the process of a person in a district getting a first temple recommend? That's all I can think of right off .... -SESmith 23:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dumb question

Normally, tags like that one are based on more serious study. Near as I can tell, you rip through article space on new LDS articles, and detach specific articles without comment or good practice. What's up here? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never added a spam tag. I can only assume you are referring to my edits on Mormon teachings about extraterrestrial life or Unrighteous dominion. I did add orphan tags to both articles. All that means is there are no or few links to the article. Pls see comments on Talk:Mormon teachings about extraterrestrial life. I don't know what you mean by "you rip through article space on new LDS articles, and detach specific articles without comment or good practice". No idea what that means, and it's not how I operate. -SESmith 08:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It looked like some sort of odd pattern of vandalism or bot insertions. I was not sure. Sorry for troubling you, Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Rebaptism

Do you have a good source or history book I could look up for the Latter-day Church's rebaptism of membership during and after the migration to the Valley? I figured if anyone had it, you might! ThanksJcg5029 04:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad discussion is in Paul H. Peterson, "The Mormon Reformation of 1856-1857: The Rhetoric and the Reality" 15 Journal of Mormon History 59 (1989), though this article only deals with the practice in the dates 1856-57, when it was most common. That reference may not be terribly useful to you if you are not near a library that carries this journal (although it may be available online somewhere--I haven't checked). I'll try to come up with a book that may be easier to find or buy. Anything biographical about Jedediah M. Grant would probably contain some info on it since he was Brigham Young's point man in the "reformation". -SESmith 04:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Some discussion of it is in the article here from Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Though this focuses on Wilford Woodruff's involvement. -SESmith 04:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, if you ever run across something feel free to let me know. I also heard the practice started in Nauvoo, is this true? Is it in the LDS history books? Jcg5029 22:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

requested quotes

The term "anti-Mormon" first appears in the historical record in 1841, as part of the title of a New York publication with the stated goal of exposing the errors of Mormonism. On August 16th of that year the Latter Day Saint Times and Seasons reported the Mormon's confidence that although the Anti-Mormon Almanac was designed by “Satan and his emissaries” to flood the world with “lies and evil reports”, still “we are assured that in the providence of God they will ultimately tend to the glory of God--the spread of truth and the good of the church.” The anti-Mormon newspaper certainly wasn't the first of its kind; Mormonism had been criticized strongly by dozens of publications since its inception, most notably by Eber D. Howe's book Mormonism Unvailed (1834). The Saints initially labeled such publications simply “anti-Christian”, but the publication of the Almanac and the subsequent formation of an “Anti-Mormon Party” in Illinois heralded a shift in terminology. “Anti-Mormon” became, on the lips of the church's critics, a proud and politically charged self-designation. Today, the term is primarily used as a descriptor for persons and publications that oppose The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, although its precise scope has been the subject of some debate. It is used by some to describe anything perceived as critical of the LDS Church, whereas others reserve it for critical persons or publications who enlist dishonest or inflammatory rhetoric. Siding with the latter, less-inclusive understanding of the term, Latter-day Saint scholar William O. Nelson suggests in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism that the term includes "any hostile or polemic opposition to Mormonism or to the Latter-day Saints, such as maligning the founding prophet, his successors, or the doctrines or practices of the Church. Though sometimes well intended, anti-Mormon publications have often taken the form of invective, falsehood, demeaning caricature, prejudice, and legal harassment, leading to both verbal and physical assault."

There are the quotes you requested. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As I predicted, this in no way helps establish the current LDS Church's "official position" towards use of the word "anti-Mormon", but thanks anyway. (None of the sources you cited constitute current official LDS doctrine.)-SESmith 05:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Notes

1. Times and Seasons, vol. 2 no. 20, August 16 1841, p. 513.
2. cf. Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate, vol. 3, no. 1, October 1836, p. 319.
3. A similar party would arise in Utah in 1883, professing to be “'anti-Mormon'...'to the heart's core.'” Cf. Jennifer Hansen, Letters of Catharine Cottam Romney, p. 76
4. Some examples of Mormons expressing this sort of sentiment are as follows: "Are You an Anti-Mormon?", AntiMormon.KeepRight.net, accessed June 2006. "Correspondence between James White and Dr. Louis Midgley", SHIELDS-Research.org, accessed June 2006. & "How I define an Anti-Mormon", FAIR Message Boards, accessed June 2006.
5. cf. Lindsay, Jeff (2005). "What is an anti-Mormon? Anyone who disagrees with you?" (SHTML). jefflidsay.com. Retrieved 2006-09-24.
6. Nelson, William O. (1992). "Anti-Mormon Publications". Encyclopedia of Mormonism (5 ed.). Macmillan USA. ISBN 0-02-904040-X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |origmonth=, |month=, |origdate=, and |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |accessmonth= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Reformed Egyptian

Can you move the article back to having a -(Mormonism) suffix? This was a decisiion the community made to keep clear of POV and confusion. See my response to your note at the AfD. Thanks. -Visorstuff 00:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I personally don't think the suffix is necessary, and the use of -("Mormonism") suffixes is to be avoided per the Latter Day Saint naming conventions. I don't want to be seen as the one legitimizing such a move. You're as able as I am to make edits (probably more, since you have admin privileges), and I won't revert the change when you make it. -SESmith 00:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Down and Back Companies

There is now an explanation of this found at Talk:John R. Murdock (Mormon) -- 159.182.1.4 22:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks –SESmith 23:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a thanks

Thanks for helping and editing with me here, I get sloppy when I am staring at the edit screen a lot. Much appreciated! Jcg5029 02:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I think that article is looking really good. –SESmith 02:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

First Vision - time for action

I appreciate the efforts of Visorstuff to resolve the situation at First Vision. I now understand that he was hampered by his past involvement in this article and with John Foxe. No one is editing the article right now, but I believe that John Foxe's comments on the talk page demonstrate that he either cannot understand or refuses to comply with the WP:NPOV policy. I'm trying to gain a consensus on his inappropriate behavior, and I invite you, as a past contributor to this article, to add your comments to this discussion. If you think that my behavior also warrants criticism, I invite that as well. I will be posting this invitation on several other user talk pages, but with your past history on this article you might be aware of other editors who have walked away. Please feel free to let them know what is going on and invite their input at Talk:First_Vision#Time_for_action. 74s181 13:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

States Parties to the International Criminal Court

Hi SESmith, I really like your improvements to the ICC articles but please see my comment here. Cheers, Sideshow Bob Roberts 00:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ses; doctrine?

I would be curious in your feedback on my conversation with Alienburrito. See my conversation here. Cheers. --Storm Rider 05:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I essentially agree with what you said there as being a good statement on what constitutes "doctrine" in the LDS Church. Of course interpretations differ on the matter, but I'm pretty much from the school that it's not doctrine in the LDS Church unless it is (1) found in the Standard Works, or (2) has been declared in a joint statement by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, as in the Family Proclamation. Anything else, even if said by the president of the church, probably shouldn't qualify. The next closest things that I think probably should qualify are statements published in correlated church materials (lesson manuals, etc.) and statements by the president of the church alone in general conference, but even these aren't doctrine in the strictest sense of the word.

I agree with your take on the existence of Heavenly Mother as not being "doctrine". The closest there comes to a doctrinal statement on the matter is the Family Proclamation, but I think as you (?--or someone else) pointed out elsewhere on WP, it says "heavenly parents" which leaves open the possible interpretations that it is a reference to God the Father and Jesus Christ as our figurative parents in heaven.

I also agree with your take on the King Follet Discourse. There have been many non-"revelation" statements of Joseph Smith from letters, speeches, etc. that have been canonized by the church as doctrine (e.g. D&C sections 127, 128, 129, 130, 131). If the church wanted to consider King Follet doctrine all it would have to do is add it to the D&C. It has not. Thus, I think we can assume that it is not "doctrine" to the LDS Church. However, some of the ideas expressed in King Follet are fairly explicitly taught in correlated material of the church (see Gospel Principles chaper on "Exaltation"), so some of the concepts probably would be considered close to doctrine.

I think this is a difficult concept to explain to people who are not members of the LDS Church or are otherwise unfamiliar with how the church works. It seems most people think, "hey, a statement from an LDS mission president talking about crazy stuff! Boy, those Mormons have weird doctrine!" Unfortunately, the fact that the church has an untrained, lay ministry makes this situation worse, since many leaders have their own ideas in the church about what is doctrine and what is not ...

Best, SESmith 08:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: feel free to post this by your discussion there if you think the support would be helpful.

I think we are saying the same thing. It is very difficult to define for others when a prophet speaks as a prophet and when is he not speaking as such. IMHO (ok not too humble), I think even some general authorities get confused with their own opinion and eternal truth. As a church, the LDS have yet to definitively define for the world this issue. They muddy the waters greatly when they state that things that are spoken by inspriation over the pulpit of general conference, in church materials, etc. are "true" or scripture. I still believe that the canon is sacrosact for LDS; if something is joined to it, then it becomes scripture. Otherwise, it may be an inspired talk, but it is not canon or doctrinal. Thanks for your comments. --Storm Rider 21:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

BYU

The intro should summarize the most noteworthy aspects of BYU. It's okay if this info is repeated in the body of the article.JackWilliams 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The info I deleted is hardly "most noteworthy". And if it is repeated it need not be verbatim or highly detailed with citations in the intro. –SESmith 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Last thought

I decided to respond here because I just didn't want the discussion on the LDS Mission page to turn into a war of words between us.

Yeah, I agree that my timing is pretty bad on this WP thing, what with it all being dependent on how you read it and all—next time I'll Skype you.

You're missing my point. Everything you write in opinion is going to be viewed differently by different people. Intentions are irrelevant. You could've easily diffused the situation by just saying what I said in my last post to you (like "geez I was just kidding" or something like that); no need to apologize in any way. Had you done that I may have even apologized myself. I will say I'm sorry if you felt like I was attacking you because that wasn't my intention (see above note about intentions). My *intention* was to continue the discussion and validate the previous poster's comments about the LDS Church sending missionaries to Israel in the future, but I guess I wasn't totally clear. The "clever" response you gave made it look like you were the one trying to cover that your "joke" wasn't received as such or even that it actually wasn't a joke but were covering for being challenged. It isn't my fault (or any other readers) that I didn't know your frame of mind when you made your "joke." All I have to go on is the words you wrote and how I perceived them. Honestly it just looked like you were attacking the previous poster's comments as "dubious" and without any merit and shooting them down.

Anyway, it's not cool to delete others' comments, regardless of how (in)appropriately stated or placed you feel they are. –SESmith 05:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Mission_%28LDS_Church%29"

OK, I'll admit that probably wasn't the best course of action, though I will say I felt justified just like when I delete unnecessary info off an article. I don't like seeing discussions spin off into opinion battles between two people. Yes it's a talk page, but in my opinion, the talk page for the LDS Mission article should be discussing items relevant to LDS Missions, not personal disagreements between two people. SO, I learned something...in the future I'll just go straight to the user's talk page.

"A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." --Proverbs 15:1 --JonRidinger 07:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not missing your point. It was another joke. Jeez, man, lighten up. Your level of seriousness and flagellation of self and others makes it sound like you've been reading too much Ecclesiastes, which I note is quite close to Proverbs in the Bible, so .... -SESmith 08:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Anthonhlund.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Anthonhlund.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 06:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

References I need help with

SEsmith - that discussion over on exatiation:ldschurch has gotten so crazy i thought it might be best if I asked here for some help with the following quotes. I'm pretty sure these are also in the Journal of Discourses, which are online at BYU.edu. I'm not asking you to read through the 1000s of pages there, but I thought you might know exactly where to find them in the JoD, or have access to the right info. I'd really like to be able to put a hyperlink in for these if i decide to use them.

The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this.

   -Joseph F. Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, v2p48

Parents will have eternal claim upon their posterity and will have the gift of eternal increase, if they obtain the exaltation. This is the crowning glory in the kingdom of God, and they will have no end. When the Lord says they will have no end, he means that all who attain to this glory will have the blessing of the continuation of the "seeds" forever. Those who fail to obtain this blessing come to the "deaths," which means that they will have no increase, forever. All who obtain this exaltation will have the privilege of completing the full measure of their existence, and they will have a posterity that will be as innumerable as the stars of heaven.

   ditto, p44

Alienburrito 00:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

I don't know off the top of my head, but if you go to http://journalofdiscourses.org/ you can browse Journal of Discourses in HTML. If it's Joseph F. Smith, I would suggest looking through the later volumes, maybe 20-26. He doesn't have a lot of sermons in JD, but there are some you will find. –SESmith 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OOO - that;s right - I totally forgot about that site - I've been going throuigh the scanned pages over at BYU - real hassle sometimes - 0 search features - nothing but the orgional scans - Alienburrito 00:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Dependent territory

I really like that map you just did for that article, but just keep in mind though that it'll be needing some additions late next year when the split-up of the Netherlands Antilles occurs. I just noticed also you had it saying Saint Barthélemy AND Saint Martin, even though they are not seen as one like St. Pierre and Miquelon. That-Vela-Fella 06:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just kept them together because I ran out of room in the Caribbean. I suppose I could work on separating them--it could probably be done. I consider it a work in progress--it's entirely possible I have missed some territories that should be included. –SESmith 07:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks on LDS Church Article

I just wanted to thank you for changing "members are Christians" back to "members consider themselves to be Christians" on the LDS Church article. It bothered me that an over-zealous BYU student tainted the article with an air of partiality. I was going to change it back myself, until I saw that you already had. --Yosemite1967 2007/08/02-05:54 (UTC)

Thanks Re: Henry Grow

My old articles are a wreck. The nominator might be still upset that I nominated Molly Mormon for deletion. Incidentally, could you take a look at that article's talk page? I think I might have lost my balance on it. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, yes, his reaction seems to have been a bit extreme on Talk:Molly Mormon, considering what you were saying. To me, he sounds like one of those overly-sensitive editors that takes every comment or criticism of his work personally, and the AFD proposal seems to have especially upset him. If it's any consolation, I considered nominating that article several times, but never went through with it. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Nominating Henry Grow was probably his way of taking a swipe at you. I am right in assuming that the issues are resolved now? –SESmith 07:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Prophet Onias

Please explain the tag that you put back on on the Prophet Onias page. Otherwise, please revert your edit. As far as I can tell, the tag is wrong. Either put a better tag, revert your edit, or explain your tag. Fredsmith2 20:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Church Handbook of Instructions

Hi Sesmith. You are off to such a great start on the article Church Handbook of Instructions that it may qualify to appear on Misplaced Pages's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- JayHenry 21:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Sesmith. I am kinda new to all this and I can tell that I have already inadvertently stepped on some toes. I was the contributor that added the publication history on the Church Handbook of Instructions. I got it from two sources and I am not sure how to include the references. One was from an article that appeared in the Journal of Mormon History. The author of the article, Edward Kimball, did all the research. I went to the BYU Harold B. Lee website to double check the sources. Let me know how you want the information so that we can give credit to Ed Kimball where credit is due. By the way, I was the research assistant to Joseph Fielding McConkie when he wrote the biography on his father, Bruce R. McConkie. If you need any info let me know.

No toes have been stepped on, at least not mine. I was glad to see your addition, and I just put the data you provided into chart for to make it more readable. You can include the references of where you got the information at the bottom of the article in the section entitled "References". –SESmith 21:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Latter Day Saints from Georgia

This should be renamed to Latter Day Saints from Georgia (U.S. state). I put on a note about this on the discussion page for the category. LarryQ 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it should. Thank you for reminding me of that. –SESmith 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

CFD for Category:American Latter Day Saints

Please note that I has started a discussion suggesting that all of the subcategories of Category:American Latter Day Saints be upmerged into that category. What I have proposed is that they would all still be categorized as American Latter Day Saints, but without breaking them up into individual states. None of the articles would be deleted. The discussion can be found here. --After Midnight 15:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Death of Joseph Smith article

I seem to recall reading that the men that were supposedly shot and killed by Joseph Smith in Carthage also happen to be some of the men accused in the trial. Unfortuantely, I can't remember where I read that or if this is reputable. Do you have any knowledge of this? --Storm Rider 15:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have heard that, or if I have it doesn't ring any bells. Dead people can't be tried in the U.S., of course, so no dead people were formally charged, but it's possible some of the accused men at their own trials attempted to lay the blame on others who had died. If that were the case, it would probably be covered in Oaks & Hill's Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith. I can't find anything like that in it as I look through it now. –SESmith 22:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Martin Harris footnote in "reformed Egyptian"

I think I'm heading for a large disagreement with two other editors over the description of Martin Harris in the reformed Egyptian article. Two users seem intent on including a footnote (and even a POV comment) that casts doubt on the reliability and credibility of Martin Harris in regards to the meeting with Prof. Anthon. IMO, at worst it is character assassination to push the POV that Harris was a gullible patsy who got duped by Joseph Smith, and at best it is original synthesis since no other source applies Harris' religious fervor/eccentricity to this event. Specifically, when I asked one editor why he had included the footnote, he said that it spoke to Harris' reliability in regard to the meeting, which to me sounds like OR. As you are not a self-identified LDS, but have an interest and knowledge in the LDS movement, would you mind taking a look and throwing in your two cents (even if it's to leave the comment and footnote in). Thanks. --FyzixFighter 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Hi. I've nominated Second Manifesto, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Misplaced Pages:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on August 22, where you can improve it if you see fit. Regards, Boricuaeddie 01:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and, regarding this, we should probably change the reference to the first paragraph, or find a way to put in in both, since that's what the people at DYK like, IMO. --Boricuaeddie 01:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I've changed it back. –SESmith 01:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On August 23, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article I Am a Child of God, 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.

--ragesoss 16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 26 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Second Manifesto, 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.

--Carabinieri 20:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK August 27

On 27 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Warren A. Cowdery, 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.

--Andrew c  23:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Melchizedek

First, I'm a great admirer of your attention to detail and your consistency & accuracy. I would greatly appreciate if you could add that the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) has historically spelled the priesthood group as Melchisedec. I figure you are the best person to incorporate that into the articles you've started that explain the LDS perspective on the Melchizedek Priesthood. I've no doubt you are aware that within RLDS tradition, the ecclesiastical format is essentially the same as LDS, other than Patriarchs are commonly referred to as Evangelists (led by the Presiding Evangelist), there are far less Seventy (with only seven quorums, the President of each making up a leadership quorum called Presidents of Seventy), a Standing High Council, and the local congregation is led by a Pastor (or sometimes called a Presiding Elder in a Stake or Branch President in a district). I hope you don't mind that I inserted the T&S AofF into the main JSJr article - within minutes people started changing it back to the LDS version. Thanks for the help and for your great work... A Sniper 16:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I thought the change to T&S AofF was appropriate and will support you in maintaining it in preference to the LDS version. I wasn't aware that the CofC uses this alternate spelling. I believe it's spelled with a "K" in the Old Testament and a "C" in the New Testament, so it likely results from some difference between the Hebrew and the Greek. I'll use the "c" spelling when referring to CofC priesthood. –SESmith 22:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Helvécio Martins

Hi Sesmith,

My bad on the Helvécio Martins edit; I thought Elijah Abel had been a GA but looked into it and realized he was a seventy but not a GA. I met Elder Martins once at BYU; awesome guy. Anyway thanks for correcting me.

- Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 05:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 31 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frederick J. Pack, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Daniel 06:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of living people by religious affiliation

I directed your attention to the relevant portion of WP:BLP, Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Categories, but I'm happy to quote it if it clears up the confusion:

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced."

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and... should not be used unless two criteria are met:

* The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief... in question;

* The subject's beliefs... are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Your addition of Roy Halladay, for example, to the category American Latter Day Saints contravened WP:BLP for all of these reasons:

• The case for the subject's inclusion in the category is not "made clear by the article text," as there is no mention of Halladay's religious affiliation in the article text.
• The article does not "state the facts that result in the use of the category tag."
• There is no evidence in the article that "the subject publicly self-identifies with the belief... in question"
• The subject's beliefs" are not "relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life," as evidenced by the fact that no mention is made of these beliefs in the article.
• The tag's claim of Halladay's religious affiliation is unsourced ("these facts must be sourced")

Nor is Roy Halladay the only example. For further information, please see your edits to Arnold Friberg, Brian Crane, James C. Christensen‎, Don Bluth, Mike Allred‎ etc. etc., each of which exhibits the same problem. --Rrburke 09:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)