Misplaced Pages

User talk:Mkmcconn

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mkmcconn (talk | contribs) at 19:08, 14 March 2007 (→Template:Calvinism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:08, 14 March 2007 by Mkmcconn (talk | contribs) (→Template:Calvinism)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

History

I haven't archived my Talk. Instead, the links below point to the same page in various states in its history. The disadvantage of this is that it means that you won't be able to answer me on the linked page, without over-writing the current version (which probably wouldn't be your intention). Just create a new note on the current page, to continue old discussions. Look to the linked pages for reference. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **


06:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Trinity

Hi Mark. I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Trinity about using the word "community" to speak of the Trinity. Hope all is well with you. Wesley 17:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the well-wishing. I have a small forest of servers coming online, and a host of scripts to write to maintain them; very busy. I've dropped in on the discussion. It looks interesting. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 09:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Evangelicalism

"The Problem with Evangelical Theologies" -- KHM03 17:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to say anything well in an interview format; but don't you get tired of hearing people claiming to have a "fresh" approach? It always comes across the same way. The old way is said to be over-simple (as illustrated by the over-simplification provided). The real Problem with Evangelical Theologies is that they have no way to quit doing this. The revolution never stops, as each generation discovers what has always been wrong. This is the Enlightenment way. If the Enlightenment turns against itself, it still doesn't escape itself.
On a somewhat different subject, you might appreciate this article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Good article. I agree with it. Keith 18:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

favor?

Mkmcconn, I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stub of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. When you have time, would you go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation you think necessary? I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, I'd be grateful if you checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful and encouraging reply on my talk page. For what it is worth, I did not add "love is understood by Christians to refer to a sentiment of fraternity for all of Creation." The fact is, I simply am not qualified to add anything to the section on Christianity. I haven't read Aquinas or Augustine, or Luther or Calvin or Wesley, or Niebuhr, and only very little of Tillich. I am sure that there has been among Christians considerable and sophisticated discussion of what "love" means, when Jesus, Paul, or others in the New Testament use the word. I just do not know it. So, what can I say? I respect your knowledge in this area and hope that at some point you do have more time to work on it. I left identical messages on the talk pages of a few other people who have been active contributors to the Jesus, Christianity, Roman Catholocism, Greek Orthodoxy, and Protestant pages, as well as theChristianity talk page. We all know how it goes here, articles improve in spurts. I spend a couple of days putting a lot of work into the Jewish part of "love." I understand it may be a while before someone has the time to put a similar amount of work into the Christian part. All I can say is, I am looking forward to that time, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Christianity, tolerance, and equality

This is an article that was started (not by me!) in relation to Criticism of Christianity. When you have an opportunity, please take a look at it and give your take on the article talk page or make edits. I had redirected it to the "Criticism" page, but the original author didn't seem to care for that option. Any help would be great...thanks...KHM03 13:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems so hopeless. That whole series of articles is silly. They all adopt a stance of gullible openness to critical arguments, no matter how distorted or misinformed, and speak from that point of view. They are all tiresome to read. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Lapinmies

I became aware of this user after he left a somewhat aggressive message on Doc glasgow's talk page; I immediately noticed that the user may be engaged in other overly aggressive behavior, anti-Semitism, and vandalism. I'm not asking for any action, but I might suggest this user be watched a bit. Thanks...KHM03 12:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I pray you have a very merry Christmas and a truly blessed 2006. KHM03 19:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mythology

I've made a lengthy suggestion at Talk:Mythology#Etymology and usage — some analysis and a suggestion. I would appreciate your input. Thank you. JHCC (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a good analysis. I'm thankful that we had that long category-war discussion for record's sake; but it sure seems futile when the same perspectives and arguments are continually raised as though they are facts. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the meta-analysis. I'm working on a further proposal to split myth back into its own article and keep the Mythology article (or at least a "Mythology as the academic study of myths" section) for the limited sense of "religious narrative." See Talk:Mythology#Myth/Mythology proposal, and please comment! JHCC (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a damn shame that you and others ignorant of the real definitions involved had an long discussion on the Christian myth category without actually consulting with relevant sources about what myth really means, but do not let your religious witnessing and faith interfere with real articles here. DreamGuy

The real shame is that you've allowed your presumption of bias to filter your perceptions. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

possible request for comment?

I am inclined to let it slide because I think I am dealing with a nut-case. But do you consider this (the last sentence) an anti-Semitic threat? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

An Invitation

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity:

  1. Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch)
  2. Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity
  3. Free subscription to our informative newsletter
  4. Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups
  5. Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions
  6. Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department
  7. Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve
Join today!

A.J.A. 01:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes Camp in Portland

FYI RecentChangesCamp Tedernst | talk 22:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


Mythology

I've put a suggestion at Talk:Mythology#A_suggestion on which I would appreciate your input. Cheers. JHCC (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Up your alley?

Duty-faith...afD. KHM03 20:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision of Arminianism

I'm working on a revision to the Arminianism page, and KMH03 mentioned that you were involved pretty heavily at one point. If you're interested in giving feedback and helping with the revision, see User:David_Schroder/Arminianism. See the discussion there...it will be ongoing until the page gets finished, checked, and approved. David Schroder 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


A Favor?

Hi Mkmconn- its been a long time since we interacted, however, I'm wondering if I can ask a favor. Things have gotten quite heated at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. between User:Bcatt and a number of Mormon editors (we have moved a portion of the discussion to my talk page). I've tried to step in and help guide the discussion, but because I am a Latter-day Saint adherent, I am being accused of treating her differently than Mormon editors and abusing my administrative status (see my talk page) - both which I take very seriously.

Whenever I've tried to guide the discussion (which I have not been a part of for the bulk, except to try to help guide), she seems to have blown up at me, as if I am mastermining and encouraging discrimination about her. For example, a few months ago I suggested that she and Storm Rider work out their uncivility and take a break from the page, but she though I was being harsher on her than him (he took a break, she didn't). When I suggested we find out who the sock puppet is on the JS Jr, she said that I was holding double standards for LDS editors, and "engaging in questionable practices due to bias." I don't know what I did to make her over-react like that, as my interaction with her was very limited up until that point, although she does have a history of controversy and antagonism towards personal beliefs (ie politics, philosophy and religion)(see her user boxes). As a non-Mormon admin who is trusted in the Misplaced Pages community, could you go to the talk page, read through and offer suggestions? In addition, and personally, I'd appreciate a critique of my handling of the situation and her. I do take these accusations seriously, as you know. Thanks in advance. --Visorstuff 22:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

I invite you to take a look at Christianity Knowledge Base and join our project!

Thanks!!! 70.30.57.80 06:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Dominionism

Template:Dominionism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Aso, there is a related AfD regarding Dominionism that you might be interested in.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 12:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and "when human life begins"

Hello Mark,

Forgive me for the length of this (I'm just starting, but I don't want to short-change the subject).

You are apparently an "Orthodox Presbyterian" who is also an IT manager for an "imaging service bureau." Yes, you know that, but I want to comment that we have some things in common; we are not all that different. I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science, and have done work in imaging (though not recently). And I am, self-described, a fundamentalist charismatic evangelical Christian who was, long ago, an atheist.

Since you've recently contributed significantly to the Abortion and Religion article (I've looked at the edit history for the past two years), I thought you might be a good person at which to direct some comments. The trouble is where to start, frankly.

Let me start with this. Do you believe that Jesus believed what he said in John 6:63?: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you, they are Spirit and they are life." Note that I didn't ask if you believe what he said, I asked if you think Jesus himself believed it. Or, for instance, do you think he was being "symbolic," as if in a parable? Clearly, he said things in parables that may be difficult to interpret (at least for sake of a consensus), and intentionally so. Is this a similar case, or did he really, literally mean this?

I both believe he literally meant it, and I agree with it as well. I dare suggest that a lot of people who consider themselves fundamentalist Christians, though, would have trouble squaring a literal believe in John 6:63 with their opinions otherwise, particularly if they believe that "human life begins at conception."

Someone had posted a link in this article to a blog which purported to give a background on where the notion comes from that Christians can believe that human life begins at conception. It said one very important thing, that when a Christian says "life begins at conception," their implicit point is not only that human life begins at conception, but that the human soul begins at conception. I agree, that must be what they mean.

The problem is that there is a clear Scriptural case that disagrees with this opinion. Let's start with Jeremiah 1:5, which says clearly that God knew the prophet not just at conception, but even before, before the prophet had any "flesh". So what of the prophet could have been known before? Not any aspect of the flesh, but likely the prophet's spirit, or soul.

The issue, if Jesus is to be believed, is not when either the flesh or the Spirit is formed, but when the two come together, and how. And this question has a clear Scriptural anwer that even Jesus spoke to: human life begins at first breath, as this is when spirit enters the body.

Genesis 2:7 all but defines life in this way: "the LORD God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Ezekial 37 says something similar, at greater length, so I won't quote any of it but I note it for reference.

You're a technically educated person, Mark, so let me ask you a basic question that gets to the issue. Can human flesh exist without being alive? Simple question, right? Of course it can. Human flesh can be as lifeless as any rock. Ask, then, another way: is there something inherent in the physical nature of human flesh that represents the presence or absence of life? The answer is "well, kinda." Nothing to do with the genetics or anything like that - the presence and use of oxygen is a good first-cut indicator. I.e., respiration, the ability and capacity to breathe. My pediatrician and ob/gyn friends tell me that the simplest indication of "viability" for a fetus or newborn is the extent to which their respiratory systems are fully formed and capable of independent function; not all such systems are fully formed at birth, notably the brain, which continues to form for years after birth. I.e., a child can be born even without a complete brain, but not without the ability to breath on its own.

Is human flesh "sacred" if it's not alive? Don't answer for yourself; answer as you honestly believe Jesus would, and that means keeping John 6:63 in mind (and other passages; surely you've read the New Testament and can think of a few good examples). I would suggest that Jesus might bellow in either laughter or anger, "Of course it's not sacred!!!" But you may have a different opinion, not of your own answer, but of Jesus' answer.

Is a fetus an independent human life from its mother? To the extent that this is not a spiritual question, the answer is that it could be either. But it's the spiritual question with which I'm concerned here, and again, I think the answer is clear: no, it's not independent, until it breathes on its own.

Jesus spoke directly to all of this, by the way, despite the impression conveyed by the current article. Not just John 6:63, but more directly, in John 3. He asserted to Nicodemus not only that there are two aspects to natural birth, but that there is evidence of both at time of birth, although the latter requires knowledge of the original Greek text, since it's not reflected, e.g., in English translations.

First, on the objection that Jesus was not talking about natural birth - consider verse 12 clarefully.

Second, let me give you an annotated transliteration of verse 8: "The Spirit (pneuma) breathes (pnei) where it desires, and you hear (acoueis) its voice (phonos), but you do not know from where it comes or to where it goes."

What's the point of this verse? OK, I'll tell you: the point is evidence. Jesus is talking about evidence. Evidence of what? That should be an easier question to answer: evidence of the Spirit, but not just evidence the Spirit in general, but evidence of the spirit in the process of birth. And to what question would such evidence speak? Simply, to the question of when human life begins.

I wondered for years what this verse had to do with anything, before I first discovered that in both Greek and Hebrew, the words for "wind" and "spirit" are the same (pneuma in Greek), and that they are based on the root word for breath (pneo in Greek). But even that doesn't get to the fullness of the point I'm making about this verse.

What evidence is there of the spirit, or anything in the spiritual realm? An atheist will tell you there's none. A Christian who believes life begins at conception would have to tell you pretty much the same (as did, for example, the James Dobson ministry, when I presented this perspective to them; they told me my interpretation was "tortured"). Jesus would point out that language exists, and is spiritual. That simple observation is what shook me out of my atheism - of course Jesus was right.

What evidence is there, then, not of the birth of the flesh - that's obvious, but of the birth of the spirit? You don't imagine that God would have designed us without providing such evidence, do you? Well, Jesus gave the evidence - the sound of a newborn crying is evidence that a spirit has entered the body, and that a new person's life is whole and independent as of that moment.

Human life begins at first breath. Jesus himself said as much, though you may have to understand how inseparable are the notions of life and breath in both Hebrew and Greek, not only to see that he did, but to see why it had him flustered by Nicodemus' lack of understanding of what Jesus thought was a simple point.

A quick-witted and moderately rational person might counter at this point that although certainly human life begins at least by first breath, that doesn't necessarily mean that it can't begin before then. Well and good. Paul suggests, however, in 1 Cor 15 that seeds must "die" before coming to life. I didn't quote the verse (I'm sure you can find it) because his method of reasoning in the chapter is even more important: it's important to be aware not just of individual details of belief, but of the broader implications of those details of belief.

In that regard, I must point out to you that a belief that human life begins at conception is something that would be far easier for an atheist to believe than for a Christian, since it all but excludes the role of the soul or spirit in favor of the flesh in the question of life, whereas Jesus did just the opposite in excluding the flesh (again, John 6:63). I in fact first heard of the notion from an atheist who presented it as a trap, to get me to conclude that there is no basis for "ensoulment" as an aspect of life at all. And that's why the question of evidence of ensoulment is so important. Christians who agree with atheists most of the way on this topic, should find themselves on deeply shaky theological grounds in Paul's 1 Cor 15 terms, if they're paying attention.

With all due respect, I don't think they are paying attention. I think they're in a race for the most zealous, self-righteous position imaginable. But since I don't share that opinion, that's not fair for me to say.

I must finally, however, note for you, Mark, that your "logic" in the article is deeply flawed. I don't even know where to begin to edit it. And if I did edit it, I suspect you'd change or delete what I write. There's no need for that. What I would like instead is for you to consider what I've just written to you, and if you find it worth consideration (I believe it was given by the Holy Spirit ; you don't have to believe the same), that you will yourself change the article to reflect it. If you don't, you and I both know that it is neither of us who judges, but only God himself, at the appointed time. "Let God be true, though every man a liar."

The physical material that makes up any particular human body at any particular point in time, does not stay fixed; it isn't sacred. I was once taught that a human body "recycles" every 7 years or so; i.e., the material that makes up the same person's body, 7 or more years apart, likely does not share a single molecule in common. This really should be obvious. If I, then, attributed my life to my flesh, I've been more than 7 entirely different people by now, not a single life at all. What foolishness it would be to think such. I have to agree with Jesus: the spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing... Or, I've been 7 different people.

By the way, Mark, this is all off topic. I haven't written here about abortion at all; I've written about when and how human life begins from a Christian Scriptural perspective, which only has implications for the topic of abortion. I am certainly not in favor of abortion. But regarding this difference in focus, please note Romans 8:6, and ask yourself, is your mind focused on death, or on life? And if it's on death instead of life, might you have been (self-)deceived?

Peace and love... 8^)

Although your essay is not overly long, it exposes confusion about numerous issues. As a result of these distortions, you have arrived at some rare and deadly conclusions. I must agree with your critics, who have called your interpretation "tortured". I hope that you will take their criticism to heart. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Your e-mail is disabled

Hi, Mkmcconn. I don't think we've come across each other, but another user gave me a private message for you, and I see that your e-mail is disabled. If that's unintentional, can you go to "my preferences" and fix it? Otherwise, I'm afraid I'll have to leave you in suspense! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 23:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is enabled. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid it's still not enabled. I just checked, by clicking on the link on the left of this page, and it said, "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." Did you go to "my preferences" at the top of the page? You'll have to click on something where they send you an e-mail to make sure that the e-mail address you've given them is really yours. Then, when you get an e-mail from them a moment later, you click on the link. Then, go back to "my preferences" and ensure that the box saying "enable e-mail from other users" is checked. AnnH ♫ 21:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It is enabled, but it was awaiting confirmation. It should work for you now. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
No. Still not. Click on the link yourself, and see if it's possible to send yourself an e-mail. AnnH ♫ 23:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Send me your message, please. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. AnnH ♫ 23:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry for having been dense about how to re-enable email. It appears that if you sent the message, it was not received. I double-checked to make sure that it works. Please send it again. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've sent it again. Please let me know if you've received it. AnnH ♫ 05:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints.

You are invited to participate in Saints WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about saints. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!


Thanks! --evrik 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

JHCC

Dear Mark,

It has been a long time since we last communicated. I am now retired from Misplaced Pages, and have left a farewell message at my old user page.

There are very few people on WP whom I would definitely want to be sure had read this message; you are one of them.

In Christ,

JHCC

Mormonism and Christianity

Hi,

I have seen in the history of the above article that you were one of the major editors to the above article. I have made a lot of changes to it (hopefully improvements). While doing so, I left a lot of messages asking for comments, but no one has said anything. Perhaps that is good? I would be interested in hearing your comments if you have the time to read it. Please leave a message either on article's talk page or my own talk page. Thanks.

RelHistBuff 22:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A belated hello

From one Portlander to another. Do you have plans to attend OSCON next month? I am in the process of organizing a BOF on Misplaced Pages for that, & would like to invite you to it. (And I've learned that you don't need to pay money to attend BOFs, so that shouldn't be a problem.) -- llywrch 15:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Amyraldism

If you have a moment, please lend your thoughts to Talk:Amyraldism#Recent edits. --Flex 20:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


Invitation to join Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Misplaced Pages which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick 18:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Puritan covenant

If you have a moment, please lend your thoughts to Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Puritan_covenant. --Flex 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki editing marxists

This is a request for immediate help from Kmaguir1 07:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC). If you have time, I'd like you to examine the Bell Hooks article and talk page. It's a scholarly article about a controversial writer, someone who drew the ire of a conservative commentator. They wanted me to go get the quote from her book, and I did that. But now, they're arguing it's not notable. As a follower of Misplaced Pages, you will know that of all the meaningless academic trivia included on her page, that what they wanted to exclude was really ridiculous: that she says as an opening to her book, Killing Rage, "I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder". This may in itself be notable, but David Horowitz wrote about it in 100 Dangerous Professors, and it was written about on front page mag, and all the citations are given on the page. I would appreciate your help--I'm contending with some very difficult Marxists who are attached to her work, and think that they're defending the liberal cause, but really, they're just keeping out material that is very easily notable.-Kmaguir1 07:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. In the interest of disclosure, I'd like to inform you of a conduct RfC on Kmaguir1. It's here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1. If you have time and are so inclined, feel free to provide comments there. Meanwhile, if you go to the bell hooks page, please do join in the discussion. If you read the Talk page and look at my and others' edit histories, you'll see that the picture is not quite as Kmaguir1 paints it. (I have no idea who the Marxists are he's referring to, and I've also edited his text for improvement, and left it in the article, vs. what he's saying here.)
Bottom line: welcome to bell hooks, be aware of the RfC, and feel free to join it. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 17:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

theosis

Please come to the theosis talk page so that we can discuss why you removed the theology sourced article and term from the article? 17:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Howdy from Portland

Hi, I emailed you about a WikiMeetup here in Portland, but haven't received an answer from you. Are you still thinking it over? -- llywrch 02:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for not getting back to you. I am thinking it over; but thank you for the prod. I'll give you an answer in the next coupld of days. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Calvinism v. Arminianism external link

The author of this article on Arminianism v. Calvinism has requested that we link to it in relevant articles, but he does not want to violate the policy of personally adding a link to material he himself wrote. What do you think of it with reference to WP:EL? --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. BTW, you may want to review the recent changes by Simonapro (talk · contribs) for accuracy and neutrality. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sola scriptura

Sola scriptura means by scripture alone or scripture alone. It doesn't mean anything else. (Simonapro 18:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

There is nothing wrong with your translation, Simonapro. It is the interpretation that needs to be clarified. Where the previous sentence implied that the slogan means that individual interpretations are "permitted" (Catholics do not say that individual interpretations are not "permitted", nor that the individual conscience is of no importance); the new sentence says rather, that the slogan concerns the means by which the teaching authority of the Church is to be regulated, governed or reformed - that is, "by scripture alone". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added an article on the analogy of faith as an umbrella article over sola scriptura viz-a-viz tradition. Please take a look, and feel free to edit, correct, or otherwise improve! --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a good start, Flex, thank you. One of the earliest editing exchanges I had was with Wesley on this very subject. You may have seen that discussion, it's in the history, here. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

POV check

Another POV check request, this time on Sola fide: These edits by User:Simonapro and these edits by an anon. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me as though there's not much problem there. But, man, I sure dislike that section listing Bible verses. It's annoyingly long and sloppily categorized - as though the two sides do not argue from the same texts. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed about the verses. Feel free to add your thoughts in that regard to Talk:Sola_scriptura#Bible_verses. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Trinity

Hi, Mark! I'm not committed to any particular wording. My concern is to find language that reflects the fact that there are more than a handful of exegetes that maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity is contained in the Scripture of the Old and New Testament. They would admit, of course, that the term "Trinity" is not in the Bible and that the doctrinal formulas of later ages are not stated point blank. Yet they see the Scripture as a whole confessing one God, while confessing the Father as God, the Son as God under names such as "The Angel of the Lord" and the "Word of Yahweh" and the Holy Spirit as God. To me, "some" gets to that. Without extensive research, however, I cannot say how many feel that way. What we do want to do is to either find language that includes them all or that sets forth the multiple positions on the subject. Peace in the Prince of Peace, Bob -- --CTSWyneken 01:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The question of Ubiquity and the Lutheran position

On the Talk:Real Presence page you raised the question of the term "ubiquity." I have answered your query with respect to the Lutheran position. Lutherans do not use this term because of its connotations.--Drboisclair 16:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not up on the precise details of the discussions between Lutheran and Reformed dogmatians, so I'll leave that fine a detail to David Boisclair, who is much more familiar with the give-and-take than I. --CTSWyneken 20:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I have posted responses on my talk page and on Talk:Real Presence.--Drboisclair 01:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. It seems that this exchange is going in a profitable direction. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bible as "mythological", "pseudoscience"

Hi, I know it would take more than a minute to read, but I would appreciate your opinion on the raging, lengthy debate at Talk:Noah's Ark on the supposed "neutrality" of Misplaced Pages endorsing the view that the Scriptures are "mythological pseudoscience"... It has been going on for one month now, with those in favor still insisting that theirs is the only significant POV on Scripture. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How disappointing. I'll take a closer look, but it sounds like the momentum of the debate can't prevent scientism from dictating decrees, damning disagreement, and pretending neutrality, for the time-being. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus as Myth

Hi, I'm getting increasingly frustrated by various editors on Jesus as Myth, particularly the kind of things they're saying on the talk page, and on two user pages - [[User_talk:SOPHIA ]] and User_talk:Orangemarlin#Jesus_as_myth. They're - wrongly, IMO - attributing bias on the basis of religious conviction to the majority of current editors, while my (biased) feeling is that those attributing the bias are either more biased, or have just had bad experiences there before (something I don't discount the possibility of, due to the very nature of the page - it stands to reason it's likely to attract extremists on both 'sides.') I'm getting increasingly frustrated at it.

In particular, a couple of them seem to be discussing on each others talk pages possibilities about mounting an edit war or something that sounds quite like one to me. I'm very eager for the situation to be resolved without anything like that happening, and was thinking that your presence might be helpful in diffusing anything that occurs. If nothing else is possible due to time constraints or lack of expertise, I'm aware that it would help to have outside commentary on the way I'm acting - I'm aware that that's probably the area where my judgements are weakest, and I hope I'm not encouraging anything like this.

Apologies if requests like this are a breach of wiki etiquette - I've not been around enough. I just felt like you seemed like a balanced enough fellow from everything I know of you, and you're sufficiently in sympathy with my beliefs for me to be able to take criticism from you without attributing bias to you, which might otherwise be a problem. TheologyJohn 16:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll watch the controversy and try to determine whether I can help. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. :) TheologyJohn 00:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism and Christianity article

Mark, we have edited together in the past and I have always appreciated your edits. I have sensed for some time that you feel Mormonism is a crock. This has never offended me; I have just accepted it. As a Latter-day Saint for many years, the perception is not uncommon. Christianity began as a cult and its followers were often persecuted relentlessly. All of us who follow Christ have no room to complain when others misunderstand or reject our beliefs.

Most of my recent comments on the article are not about doctrine or differences, but just about the style of writing. This subject can easily attract zealots on both sides of debate. It can quickly turn into a scriptural debate, which I have always tried to avoid. I don't find it productive. As you can see today we begin to see some of the LDS side of this form of debate.

My objectives for the article are to clearly, but respectfully, outlines the differences of the article. I try to keep the emotion out of it. I can be curt, but I don't think I ever conciously choose to offend someone based upon their personal beliefs.

Please think twice about how you want to state things. Phrasing can easily trigger emotional responses that will only end up with bad feelings. Please strive to keep things on an even keel while you achieve your objectives. Cheers. --Storm Rider 07:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've admired and I've been grateful for the sincerity, the humility and deference of our interactions. You and several others here at Misplaced Pages have helped me to accept that Mormons take following Christ very seriously. Although I've been around Mormons my whole life, I've never been more appreciative of the Christian qualities of that religion than I've become through acquaintences made here. This is my firm and honest opinion of you and of what you believe, which I hold without a whisper of doubt that Mormonism is a quack sham.
I am not trying to offend. We volunteer for an interesting and useful project, not only in accumulating knowledge (that for good or ill is taken semi-seriously by a growing number, as a source of information), but also it's a valuable experiment in living together. If I do offend, I am very interested in how and why. I want to learn, when my beliefs evidently affect the way that I represent the facts or the way that my presentation is perceived, exactly how the facts or my presentations are tied to what I believe; and the same, when they are your presentations that offend me. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
To me you are not offensive; I do remember a few comments in months past that made me laugh out loud. You are strident in your personal beliefs and to those who do not know you, I can see how they could become offended. To state in a public environment that someone's beliefs are a complete sham borders on being irresponsible. I can still remember hearing a fellow's first impression of Christianity, "you men to tell me you eat your God's flesh and you drink his blood every week?!". What has become a common belief to us, can so easily appear like complete tomfoolery to another.
We must remain respectful of the beliefs of others and yet, we must remain true to our own. This means that though we can confidently proclaim our own position, we allow another to do the same without begrudging the obvious conflict. The difference is that we state what we believe without attacking their beliefs or evaluating them. Those are best for tracts, but not here in an encyclopedia. Keep going; your participation will yield a better article, but help others to stay calm also. Cheers. --Storm Rider 19:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that you might ask more than is either realistic or necessary. I expect people to disrespect my beliefs, unless they believe as I do. If they believe firmly in having no beliefs, I expect them to disrespect me personally, as a man with beliefs. I abhor flattery. What I am required to do, is remember the image of God, and the mercy and gentleness appropriate to our common weakness. And, of course, I need to help people not to misrepresent when they write about my beliefs (even if they do not respect them).
I think that you will very rarely ever catch me writing tracts; unless you count those occasions when I've created stubs using essays that I've written (I did that on some of my first articles - Afrikaner Calvinism, Christian ecumenism, Predestination and Predestination (Calvinism) - but I can't think of any others).
You're talking about what goes on in talk pages, though. I am unsure of what you're recommending there. Did I cross a line into personal attacks, in your opinion? Was I stumping for my personal views, instead of looking to improve the article? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking a look at your talk page I can see that you have been very busy and made many useful contributions. That is why I don't understand your recent posting on my talk page. It seems that you think a definition of terms is irrelevant. I am truly a newbie here, but I have to ask, how can we talk about a subject without defining terms?

In response to your map analogy, if the two men are using the same map (the Bible) and end up in such wildly different places, then either one or both of the men has a real problem reading maps (your position) or the map has been copied so many times that it is distorted and difficult to read (LDS position). The problem is, some of us point to a particular spot on the map and say, "this looks like it says Moscow, Idaho to me, what does it look like to you, Mark?" and you either don't respond or you say the question is irrelevant because in your universe, everyone knows that the map leads to Moscow, Russia (Trinity) even though the word "Russia" appears nowhere on the map. 74s181 12:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

See, this is what I thought you would draw from the analogy. Your question, is what you care about. It's so bad that, even if I tell you that the analogy is "maps", you still think that the analogy should be "Moscow". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 13:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You posted on my user talk page, so I have to assume that what you posted was meant for me personally. If you knew I would misinterpret your analogy in a particular way then why didn't you correct it so I would understand your meaning? Were you deliberately trying to create a stumbling block? That would be unChristian, wouldn't it?
And by the way, despite their differences, both Moscow, Idaho and Moscow, Russia are on the same planet, and I suspect that both have people who are much more alike than different. Some of them are even Christians. Even in Idaho, a bastion of LDS! There are many (unfortunately, not all) LDS who out of Christian love would accept and try to understand you and hope that you would accept and try to understand them. I am trying to understand you, there is something about your writing style that constantly makes me feel like what you are saying is hidden in the shadows, just beyond the reach of my understanding, but I am trying. I have my ups and downs, occasionally I allow something someone says to offend me and I react in a very unChristian way, and for that I apologize. Try to have a good day, ok? 74s181 15:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
74s181, if you assumed that it was posted to you, personally, then why did you cross-post it to the article page? Nevermind. I understand the heat of debate.
I just wanted people to know why I wasn't asking you these questions anymore on the M&C talk page. 74s181 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I warned you that your current line of reasoning would lead you to mis-interpret the parable, although I hoped not. I am not trying to be unclear - I've tried many different ways to make the point as plain as day and as simple as possible, that the aim of the M&C article cannot be to determine who is a Christian and who is not. Yet, you still want me to answer this question. I will not answer it, because it is not relevant to the article. Maybe if you slowly read that long exchange on the talk page of the article, you'll see that I've said this again and again. Best regards. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have seen you say this again and again, but I still don't understand why you think this question is irrelevant to the article. I agree that the purpose of the article should not be to determine who actually is a Christian and who is not (only One can do that). But do I think that the purpose of the article is to explore the doctrinal differences between Mormonism (defined as those churches who accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, and the First Vision as fact) and Christianity (defined as ????). Different people seem to object to different LDS doctrines, but many are united in believing that LDS are not Christians. So, a significant (maybe the most significant) part of the article needs to be "Mormons believe they are Christians because...", followed by "Traditional Christians (whoever they are, you haven't defined them yet) believe Mormons are not Christians because...???" I and many others have tried to provide the reasons why Mormons consider themselves Christians, I've asked you to provide a statement of definition of Christians that excludes LDS. Then we can talk about the differences. You have made it clear that you don't want to do this, I just don't know for sure why. 74s181 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have already provided many, many reasons for this. The article is not called "Mormonism vs. Christianity". It is called "Mormonism and Christianity" - Mormons call themselves Mormons and Christians. And there are Christians who do not call themselves Mormons: that is the difference. Why does this difference exist? What issues result from this? What are the implications for Christianity, as Mormonism continues to grow and gain influence? These questions do not involve arguments about who is right, and who is wrong. But alas, arguments are what you want to explore. It is a useless project of which I want no part. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
A definition! A bit surprising, not really what I expected, but still, a definition. Christians who call themselves Mormons, or, in other words, accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, and Christians who do not call themselves Mormons or , in other words, do not accept Joseph Smith as a prophet.
You're pretending to be thick, now. This is what I was pleading for all along. The issue has to be Mormon claims (which are more than, but importantly include, "Joseph Smith is a prophet") - you insisted again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and ... that the issue is Mormon doctrines and "what is a Christian?" You would feel pretty silly, if you re-read that discussion in light of this "suprising" discovery. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course, a careful reading of your statement reveals another possible interpretation, that is, people who call themselves Mormons and claim to be Christians, but are not, and people who are Christians and don't claim to be Mormons. If that is what you meant, then we haven't gotten anywhere, you are still claiming that there are fake Christians (mormons) and real Christians (who?) without giving any kind of definition of what makes the real Christians real and the fake Christians fake. Well, maybe what you mean is, "if you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet then you can't be a real Christian". But then we're back to the same place, why does believing JS to be a prophet make someone not a Christian? I believe Moses was a prophet, and I suspect you do as well. What's the difference? Anyway, hope to see you back on the M&C page. 74s181 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah.. ahh... Oooooh, drat. The lights go out again. I thought it was up and running there, for a minute. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. -- Thomas Edison
After your 'lights out' comment, and your Einstein quote on the M&C talk page I couldn't resist. 74s181 04:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You're making the same mistake that has held back that page from the beginning. Sad, really. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I really liked your edits to the M&C lead today. I only made one small change. I think I am getting closer to understanding your vision for the article. Not completely there yet, but getting closer. 74s181 12:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just so you are aware, I believe the use of qualifiers in the M&C article is permitted under the exclusions allowed. However, I tried to clarify them in the article. I added:

This view is common among traditionalists and mainline churches, but rare among modernists.

Do you think this helps clarify the qualifiers sufficiently? Do you think it appropriately indicates which is the majority and minority view? I don't always agree with you, but I do value your opinion. Vassyana 14:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an improvement. I think readability dictates that it belongs in a footnote, but that's up to you. Thanks, Vassyana; I wish you well. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You're probably correct. It would be a good footnote explaining the "many" or "most" Christians who view Mormonism negatively. Thanks for the thought. G-d bless. Vassyana 05:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I still cling to the opinion, though, that the article will only stablize when two things happen:
  1. LDS editors of the article might at last, someday, finally abandon the futile assertion that the reason Mormonism is not "commonly" accepted by Christians outside of the LDS is because it's not "traditional" or "mainline" - and focus instead on the outworking of Mormon claims.
  2. The evangelical writers stop trying to prove that Mormonism isn't in the Bible - and focus instead on the outworking of the rejection of Mormon claims.
But this is not what the editors of that article have ever been interested in. Both sides have wanted to use that article as another avenue for exhibiting their arguments - practically unavoidable, but inevitably the least maintainable portion of the article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Patience is one of the great qualities of God that we should all emulate. I have seldom achieved the position of being able to remain completely calm when conflict continues to strengthen. You are doing just fine.

In many ways, I do think the importance of the article focuses on what is similar and what differs between mainstream Christianity and Mormonism. The points you have brought up take the article further, beyond that immediate scope, which I find has merit. I have been terribly busy of late and can't really edit to any great depth; however, I will endeavor to focus on this article. You take the lead and begin this new direction and let's see if we can produce a better article. If we are both patient success will follow as naturally as day follows night.

The vast majority of editors seek proper things, but for sacred cows we have to cut through emotion and move into what is perceived as darkness, but is really only the beginning of learning. Let's move on. --Storm Rider 05:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For now, it is hard for me to see the difference between personalities and positions. I won't be editing that page until this confusion clears for me. If more experienced Mormon editors can't re-gain control of the page, it will be nominated for deletion again - and I think that you know this would be the right thing to do. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

time out

I'll be taking another break, for a while. I regularly check this page, though. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Followup

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

...Please don't wait for them to teach me. If anything I've contributed has offended you just let me know. Or if you have some pointers on how I can improve I'm all ears. :-) And I'm not being sarcastic when I say that, I truly do accept constructive criticism. Who knows, someday I may get to the point where you deem me worthy of respect ;-)Mpschmitt1 20:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Each of us has a better idea of what we believe, than we have of why others do not accept our beliefs. And yet an explanation of this rejection of theirs naturally forms part of our beliefs. You'll have the respect that I spoke of, when you join those I mentioned in letting insisting that those who reject your beliefs speak for themselves - even though this means holding back part of your belief. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood what I'm all about here (probably my own fault, I admit). I absolutely do insist upon what you request. As I've mentioned in my postings, the facts are all that matter when it comes to what ends up on the M&C page. If there are facts that favor Mormonism, or don't favor it, they are facts about the two different beliefs and have equal right to belong there. I have not removed any content from that page simply because it was negative about the Church. I have removed content when it was innaccurate or a polemical statement disguised as an observation. I have no problem with people saying "These Christians over here believe such and such, and so in their eyes, Mormons are not Christians because Mormons don't believe such and such." I do have a problem when that statement is changed to "All other Christians are united in condemning Mormonism as a heretical cult because of wildly divergent doctrines that seek to undermine the roots of that great monolith Historic Christianity which is comprised of a group of people who actually believe the Bible and agree with one another on all the essential doctrines of Christianity which makes them much more valid Christians than Mormons could ever hope to be." This is an exaggeration of course, but from your postings, you seem to actually be agreed with me on two fundamental points (though perhaps you feel I viloate my own principles every day, if so please point that out because I want to correct that behavior):
  1. 1. Only the facts belong in the final product
  2. 2. The goal is to represent both sides fairly, not necessarily gain converts to either side (although if that's a side effect of reporting the facts, so be it). <

Mpschmitt1 21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This has not happened. If for some reason my disappointment matters to you, then I leave it to you to decide what to do about that. Thank you for your wanting to do the right thing. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't see how that has not happened in anything I've contributed. I agree with many of the edits you have made to the page that make things more neutral (even on some things that I contributed in the first place). I have also removed content or changed it when it was contributed by a well meaning Mormon but did not have a very neutral feel to it. All I'm after is fairness in reporting. I don't want this page to turn into a subtle bash of Mormonism any more than I want it to turn into a pro-Mormon apology. Yes I've pulled from some sources that happen to be Mormon apologists, but the content is not all that inaccessible. It would really help if you would speak in specifics instead of broad generalities. It would also help our conversation (if that matters to you) if you weren't so dismissive at times in your comments. I'm reallly a very flexible person and not afraid to admit where I've been wrong. I don't deny that my biases (just as anyone elses biases) will color the particular way I view and represent things. In those cases, it helps to have someone from another perspective say, "Listen, brother, this isn't a religious tract, if you said it this way instead, it might come off as more neutral." If you are speaking about what I've contributed to the discussion page, then yes I'll admit I've been frank about my position and opinions, but that's what the discussion page is for. If you are speaking about what I've actually contributed to the page, then tell me specifically where you are disappointed and I will work with you to make it something you feel better about. Mark, I'm not trying to stir up contention here. I'm seeking for a reasonable line of understanding that we both feel good about. You've suggested that I be better about "insisting that those who reject your beliefs speak for themselves", yet I have done nothing to prevent other Christians who contribute to the page from accurately describing what they believe in contrast to my own. In fact, I welcome it. That's the purpose of the article. Those most qualified on certain areas of expertise should be the ones contributing to those areas. That's why in some of my postings I've solicited someone from the Trinitarian viewpoint to explain it, since I don't see myself as an expert in that area. And yes your dissappointment matters to me. If only because it means I haven't accurately represented myself to you and I've perhaps done more harm than good. I'm actually a fairly decent fellow with a strong faith in God and generally cheery disposition. (Woah, beginning to sound like a personal add there, sorry ;-).I'm also generally fairly easy to talk to on spiritual things (even when differences of opinion arise). Some of my postings may have been more impassioned but that was because I was upset about polemics creeping into the article that shouldn't be there. I'm sure you feel the same from what you've stated in your postings. Mpschmitt1 19:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your desire to be fair. But surely you can see even from a light scan of the footnotes, that this article is really nothing more than an explanation of the LDS vs Trinitarians from the view of Mormons trying to be fair. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, I agree with you that it's a bit lopsided at present, but that's because a lot of the contributing has been from the Mormon side lately (Ala me, Storm rider and that 78-something chap). I've actually been hoping for a while now that a few good even handed Trinitarians would rise up and expand the sections and paragraphs that pertain to "traditional Christianity". If you feel up to that task, Mark, please go ahead. I really do want both sides to be represented fairly, but I don't feel that I'm qualified to speak authoritatively on the Trinitarian view, so I'd rather not misrepresent there. As you said, since our own tradition and belief system is what we are most familiar with, that's really the only one we can effectively represent...On a related note, I actually very much appreciate the changes you made to some of the references I included to make it more clear that they are coming from and LDS apologetic view (if you notice, I didn't quibble with any of those changes). That's one example where I was over the line in terms of neutrality and you pulled the article back to the center. I'm absoutely fine with those kinds of changes on your part.Mpschmitt1 18:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Because the article is written at the level of the Mormon argument, it provokes the editors, predominantly Mormon, to explain their arguments and perspective in more or less detail. Further, Mormon presuppositions dictate that there is no Christian consensus (on the level of arguments) from which their argument can be challenged - for this reason the editors are constantly arguing about where the argument against them is coming from. They carry forward the Mormon case against the credibility of their opponents as spokesmen for anyone but themselves. When evangelicals enter the debate, their concern also is dictated by the level at which the article is written - an eye-level engagement between opposing viewpoints . As they attempt to take over on that level, they fill the article with proofs of the non-Christian origins and product of the Mormon synthesis. It is chaos, as a result of writing the article at the wrong level of description - where every editor is being asked to "fairly" interfere with the debate from their perspective. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, we should be writing an anatomy, not performing a vivisection or an autopsy. The article always tends to descend into the conflict, because it is a vivisection (interfering with the responses to theological arguments carried forward by Mormons). At times in the past, the article was an autopsy (focused on conflicts and controversies that are long-ago dead). Instead, it should be a description of how the past figures into the present relationship, and a survey of the lines drawn by theological debates, as described by existing literature on the topic (not from our personal knowledge of arguments). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Technical Question

Hey Mark, You seem to be a vetran around here, so I've got a technical question for you. I'm trying to add some stuff to the Godhead page, but it doesn't seem to like the ref tag. Would you know why that is? Mpschmitt1 02:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to add a special tag, usually under a "Notes" or "References" subhead, like this:
== Footnotes ==
<references />
You can read more about how this extension works, by going to the extension's project page. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Mpschmitt1 02:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Another source of information

Mark:

As I was finishing up my lesson for the young men's class for today, it occurred to me that the young men's lesson manual might be a good resource for you if you have any specific questions about Mormonism. The manual is aimed at teenagers. It will not only describe the doctrines, but provide some cultural insight for you into how we think.

The link to the manual is here (or you can go to lds.org, click on "Gospel Library", "Lessons", "Aaronic Priesthood" to get to the table of contents.

Obviously, if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. Your talk page is on my watchlist, so if you answer here I will see it. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Template:Calvinism

Please see Template_talk:Calvinism#Barth_and_Reformed_Baptists. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that issue, Flex. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)