Talk:Mormonism/Archived coverup allegations

Archive
I archived this talk page, as it had become massive and most current conversations seemed to have drifted uncomfortably close to personal attacks. Please feel free to continue relevant, civil discussions below; remember that proposed changes should include proper sources.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! 20:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Being the most recent poster to the (now) archived discussion, I agree with why you archived the discussion. The discussion wasn't advancing, even with my posting. Thanks for archiving the discussions. Val42 02:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And it was 170KB long. :) --Kmsiever 03:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

NO! TO THIS COVER UP AFFAIR AND TO THE TRANSGRESSING OF ALL RULES BY TOO MANY ADMINISTRATORS
This archiving is a fraude to remove disturbing informations that the church do not aprove with. Of course the admi doing so is a pro mormon full memeber of the church, whcich is the same than asking to a KKK member to be impartial when judging a black he is going to condamn no matter what. Mormon members are not aloud to interfer with decisions involving disagreement with non member of the church or memeber of the church who disagree with the central point of view and convictions and come with new essential informations about what is really going on.
 * Not only you have archive it solo, but you have also removed my last edit, and I wonder how it is possible to do so in less than 6 hours, and for you to go on holyday for the month at the same time, living nobody to ask about it.
 * Very typical of abusiv admi and seen before.
 * You left no explainations for your actions either.
 * I am the one who have denonce the personal attacks made AGAINST ME on this page, as they were made against me, and complain that reactions were out of subjects, or "denying the question" to use the proper argumentativ terminology, but you left the one who was making personal attacks against me and removed my defense.
 * Most unappropiate.
 * I wonder if you are in fact not acting as a wiki admi but as a friend of friends, contacted to do others a favor.
 * Proove the opposit or set back the thing as they were.
 * There was no reason to archive the way you did it.
 * This discussion page had to be archived a long time ago because of its length, but it doesnt included, ever!, to archive the 2 last post. It isnt a regular wikis policy either.
 * You did it only to hide those last posts, and even suppressed the last from the archive itself, AND FROM THE HISTORIC WHICH IS COMPLETELY FORBIDDEN ON WIKI, WITHOUT PASSING BY THE PROPER CHANNEL FIRST AND GIVING SOME SOLID REASONS FOR IT.
 * I am afraid that your motives to do so are all imbued of mormonic believes, as I was not making personal attacks in my contributions, but was based on facts, and you even choosed to leave vals' insulting text, useless chapterised parts, who was repeating large part of my preceding edits for no reason at all, which is not recommended to do on wiki,[see abuse of space on wiki rules] and by this way confirming the decadence and activ corruption who is blooming on wikipedia.
 * You should be ashame of your actions and of again hidding behind rules, that you cross as pretending applying them, and that are not use on all user equaly.
 * Equality being the basic rule on wiki, officialy, I will like to see some of that applying here, for a change.
 * I also crave that the text who was suppress from the archive get reinserted and that an external administrator look upon it. One who isnt mormon nor a close friend of any of the people involved in this.
 * I also have the right to crave to be handed my edit personally as purpose to use it as proove to wikipedia board, that I have contacted. So put it on my personal talk page today.
 * None of the participants have until now given any reason for their attitude and personal attacks, but found convenient to pursue such actions, even after I had say that it was enough with that kind and that they had to keep their comments on what I had written, and not answer to something they had imagined me saying.
 * None of them has done so yet, and as far as I recall I do not have use force on them as they are doing on me, nor did I call 5 bossy friends to help me knock down the opponents opinion, nor did I ever answer to anything else but what a person had written to me, nor did I ask for somebody else to answer questions directly adressed to me.
 * I will found doing the opposit a rude thing to do and unproper, but mormons have seemingly exercised this practice long enough to found it natural.
 * I will have members of the church and president to look at this talk page before the end of this week, to give me their opinion and know if this is a crusade made by the church, or if it is a crusade involving the individuals named on this talk page only, against their imaginary enemy and inner demons.
 * You were so much asking for proofs, where is your eager for such now?
 * You are never so keen at asking for proofs before acting against me, and what happened is a terrible exemple of what I talk about in preceeding edits, concerning mormons violently assertiv reactions patterns and total censorship of all mormons articles and talk pages, and concerning wikipedias corruption of admi and friends favors, as well as my accusation of the total control of church members of this talk page, who managed to become administrators and this way gain full control by mean of power abuse, corruption, and disregard of wikis' first rule: all wikipedian, registered or not, are equal, and considered as part of the community by mean of their contributions.
 * >From the moment I write in wiki I am your equal, regardless of your own opinion about it, and of your MIT's mentality.


 * I crave the last contributions to be removed from the archives and be placed here as Storm rider didnt answer me and as val discontribution and personal attacks do not count as a contribution nor as an answer.
 * This person is extremely freak to have contacted an admi friend to talk her voice about personal attacks as if they had been made by me against he, and to dont see his: discriminations: racial, social, language racism, cynisism, direct insults, humiliating comparison of my person to a troll, and so on...
 * But the burritos guy seemed to agree with all that. It isnt personal attacks when it come from a friend, specialy a mormon!
 * I found my answer to those things val vomited at me very clever, specially after having warned that enough was enough. I have used her own methods, but more developed as better founded and argumented for, as she tried to put my text against me in a very unabil way(which wasnt possible as what I wrote was never an attack, but read the "now diseapered edit" to see that)so I mirrored herself in it, which she didnt like at all.
 * All seems to lack the hability to argument properly on this talk page, and to understand what thats mean.
 * Tell me is it an american thing to kill the one you disagree with?
 * Because all this shit you are having on wiki english and american does not exist in the european countries.
 * There is no admi abuse on wiki french, ever. It is never necessary nor a thing they will even think to do.
 * They are not partial nor discriminatorical in their evaluations and always evaluate things equally, but you just take side, keep side, do not want to hear nor understand anything who isnt exactly what you were compute to accept.
 * It is indeed very american to just keep with those who are just like yourself and never listen nor be open to what is different.
 * You dont know what equality means, for the vast majority of selfrighteous conservators, and thats why your country is in such a big shit: you do not know what real democracy is as you have never been able to experience it, nor even wish to ever.
 * You are also unaware of it, and thats why all your actions outside US are doomed to fail, as you dont know what you pretend to impose. There is no democracy in the US, the 2 last presidential elections were tricked as can be read and documented on ACLU, and on the european observation comitee home page (I have the EU rapport of the last election with prooves it was falsificate, so just ask I will fax it to you), the same as for the election of Ronald Reagan, but you are oh so blind!
 * You have no social network and it doesnt worry you nor bother you that a social network is the first sign of a working democracy.
 * So no surprise that democracy cannot exist on wiki when the majority of its members are in fact anti democratics idiots, unaware of it, and who dont know a thing about equality, and are by this way unable to apply nor transmit nor guard wikis rules and philosophy.
 * Their actions is very destructiv as they destroy all wikipedians structure by their childish and unreflected actions.
 * You never take consequences of your actions but instead put on it a name it doesnt have to disguise it in something you can better accept about yourself, like guarding wikis moral, or applying wikis rules, when you are doing the exact opposit.
 * I have seen this pattern on too many wikis admi english speaking, for it to be an incident. It is a pattern who have to do with the american history and its non access to real democracy, whcih is my reason to mention it here, as a very relevant side of the story developping here as well as on many other articles and talk page in wiki english and american.
 * It is reflecting a mentality who is so self denying of its own actions that discussion is very difficult if not impossible.
 * By chance all english or american are not like this, but it seems that those who are are making a mark where it was very unlucky for all that they did.
 * All what is done in the US by its government is fundamentaly undemocratic and imposed.
 * The vast majority of americans don't react nor name this undemocratic process who has been going on for decades, because they are told to be the biggest democracy in the world and....they believe it! But also because the other majority dont have the mean to stop this, change this, as has been showned to them in the past. And as ACLU limitated field of action shows it.
 * Many wikis admi, and uppers, are declared conservative people, and not for nothing. All those conservatives are with to asphyxiate the democratie. Not because they are conservativ, but because they think that being conservatist is to be against free will, and to impose on others without ask by mean of power, force, and influence.
 * Like val for instance who cant see that what he does was a unlegitimate attack with insult, that he found certainly very funny, but not so funny once he is the target of it. So what did he do? accept to be using the wrong tools and see the fair in an equal answer?
 * No.
 * She call big mama and oncle sam and have them shouting at the disturbance.
 * ANd now, AAAHHH! it is much better, they can all breath the undemocratical air in peace. Nobody is there to point out any holes in the system nor mention that they are doing wrong or doing what is unfair and being discriminatoric, all is cool with only those one totally agree with.
 * So val how can you pretend being a geek and not understand a joke, or having asparagus and not been able to think 10 thoughts on your own, and beeing nørd and unable to make a simple text analysis nor draw your own conclusions?

How can you be for the freedom of expression if the first things you do in a real situation, is to deny access to the other person, insult her, then attache her, suppress her liberty to talk and to print what she wrote, so nobody can see it, and threaten her, so you are sure nobody with a different opinion than yours will come here and confront you with what is real?!
 * All that in the name of freedom of expression, liberty of press, and equality, and to counter personal attacks!!??
 * Against whom?
 * Those who agree with you?
 * Those who disagree and defend themselves of YOUR attacks?
 * Or for all in all equality as expressed on wiki rules?


 * I am far from being the alone wikipedian having problems with the corrupted wikipedians administrators, and uppers, and it is in fact generalized inside the english-american talking wikipedia and is a problem for all users with a more democratical view than yours, and with a cultural background based on openness and freedom of speach, and who are used to discuss any matters they disagree about without feeling the urge to kill the other person, or forbid this person to speak nor hate this person, as most european do and straight thinking american, or american with commun sens do, but there is not many of them on wiki, maybe they runned away when they see what you do here, how abusive you are and how irresponsible you are, to always deny the real purpose and consequences of your actions.
 * As it can be seen on wiki french and german, and danish, no admi abuse exist there, only the english and american administrators are comitting abuses, not all of course but a very large part who is with to keep wishable admi out of wiki, because this kind of mentality convinced those people to stay away.
 * I am very concerned at seeing how automatically one is considered as enemy and banned, out of prejudices, and without one word based on what the person actually is presenting. Like in my exemple here, on the now archived part of this talk page, even if never before on wiki a talk page has been archived together with an ongoing discussion, burrying the last 2 to 3 posts, to shut down the wikipedian one cannot argue against nor put oneself together to argue or at least try to understand!.
 * You do not know what you dont like as you do not have mentioned one word of what my contribution was about.
 * You have stay outside, turning around the pot.
 * And yes, it is tiring to waít and say "closer" all the time, and have to dispach messages from one to another, and being meet with a degree of suspicion that make the definition of paranoia blemish.
 * Why dont you try some pronoïa for a change?
 * As in fact warmly suggested in WIKI's for-starters-set-of-rules?


 * The first encyclopedia was french and a success for centuries, the second was american and an immediate disaster.
 * It made wars, created wars, usher wars, encourage wars and unjustice and discriminations, and the use of sovjet methods to shut the mouth of anyone having informations they disagreed with.
 * Not a free platform to access and give free reliable data, but A Copy Conform of the United state of america, (the worse side of the US, if you want my meaning) it screams, it pretends, it wants, it use all the right words, but it doesn't work as it cant apply any of them.
 * No one knew the meaning of those words nor what it imply, what egality was, only if used between its own pairs...
 * Revert this archiving who is the worse case of hidding your crime I ever seen and a bad remake of the Watergate.
 * I you want to hide documents and files do it somewhere else than on wikipedia, this place is supposed to inform and be a place where one can free dispose of informations and access them easely.
 * Not a labyrinth or a jungle of false data one has to fight through to get the right document.
 * You are doing the american way to corrupt data, versus the chineese.
 * All can access all, but you control the contain of it all, for chineese it is all can access the part the government agree with.
 * At the end the chineese are more honest, at least they anounce the colors and are conscious of it!

I want this englo american type of wiki attitude to be stoped and wikis rules to be really respected and not faint and used and abused as a mean to escape from "disturbing" informations, and from users stampled as "opponents", by using wikis rules, ment to protect all users rights, as weapons against them, not to insure they rights to express themselves, but to insure the suppression of those rights.
 * WIKIPEDIA has become a dictatorship of small minded administrators who have no respect for freedom of speach nor equality, and who bugg this place and hinder it to function as it was once imagined to, and as it was once working as, before those buggs where everywhere.

The fact that they even bugg this kind of edits who denounce them and this very problematic situation in Wikipedia and for Wikipedia and wikipedians as a whole, and suppress it all together as was shown by my last edit is the proove that the situation is very serious. I want my last contribution who has been deleeted from the archive and from the historic to be reinserted and send to me personaly, as I intend to use it against WIKIPEDIA by sending it to ACLU, and using it against those small dictators who call themselves admi, by sending it to some person from the administration board as well as wikipedias' foundator.


 * I will, on the basis of this, reinsert the last contributions who are at the end of the archive, except for the last one who has been completely deleeted, because of the real informations it contained, and that some found dangerous, in such a degree that they supressed it from the historic, which is an exception to wikipedia rules, who must always be abondantly founded, and who is specially worrying here as no reasons are given for it.
 * The alone reasons advanced are those I have advanced myself as I was subject to attacks and therefor cannot be use to eleminate my own contribution and leave the agressor and his meaningless and insultiv edit there.
 * If you consider all or part of my contribution who has been deleeted as a personal attack, I would like to know which part and whom you think it is attacking.
 * If something is offending, I want a fair trail and the chance to can remove what is discussed on my own, as it is the proper way to do on all other wikipedias who do not use force nor abuse of power by admi, and who respect the wikipedian rules and have some respect for the freedom of expression and for the equality in the treatment of users, as well as wikipedians rights to have a different knowledge and a different opinion than any other wikipedian.

Mind the line on the grass,

Sophie
 * sophie@nostromo.dk

--213.237.21.242 10:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The last 3 contributions from archive 1, are following, for the talk page to can fullfill its purpose and not be hindered by external forces to do so, and certainly not members of the church having internally elected one another to become administrators and be more and more inside wiki. No to the corruption of wikipedia.

Some more detail about Mormonism and constructions fundaments

 * Regarding polygamism with early mormons, Joseph Smith and his first group of 12 mens were using it all the time but hidding it from their wifes... Joseph Smith was married to more than 20 womens, without the knowledge of his wife, and problems occured when this first group around him wished to make this polygamism as an official rule of their sect.


 * As the first wife of J. Smith was to know about her husbands several wifes, and made a scandal against it and asked for divorce, so angry she was against him, Joseph Smith changed his mind. It made J. Smith to think a little more about the problem and to make it a non legal part of their rules, which made the other male members angry at him. It end up as a polygamism rule, but first fully applied to all after Joseph Smith death. As many things in mormonism they first appeared after the foundators death, and are mostly made by its closest coworkers to assist them in gaining more power.
 * It is also very well known that previously to Smiths writings about the supposed contain of its golden books, he was contacted by various members of masonics loges, and many of this church rituals, both sacred and profane, are directly taken from classical freemasonry and masonic orders'rituals. Many of the believes enumerated in the mormons books are also directly taken from those traditions, therefor the mormons books looks more, for a religions and myhtologies and esoterisms specialist point of view, like an amalguame or milk shake of several religious and sectars theories, well known within other religious groups, than a religion in itself. Nothing in the mormon books is original, all is taken from somewhere else, often with quiet a unimaginativ mind.


 * The mormons researchs in latin america have given zero zero zero as prooves who could elaborate anything stated in the book of mormon as a source, or even ressembling source, for all the tribes described there.
 * Another correction to what some have earlier stated here: there is a hell in mormons theory.
 * Only true mormon, true knights of the later days saints, and else being it since as most generations as possible, have access to heaven,(the upper part, nearest to God). The downs part being reserved to just coming in members and half fallen members. And out of it is hell, for non mormon, who cannot access the other levels, and will never been able to be in the upper levels. It is clearly stated in the mormons teaching, and I heard it several times, by mormons priests, that there is no salvation for non mormon. Christian go to hell too, and none of the christian priests are recognized as such, nor are they aknowledge the power to baptise anyone, and they teach that even the first apostles, those walking around Jesus Christ, were not able to baptise others and that it is therefor their power was stopped there, until Jesus christ himself took to latin america, and baptised a bunch of by mistake-landed-there-hebrews, and later on this power was given by Christ and Moises itself to Joseph Smith.
 * And thats the way the story goes.


 * The foundator of the christian church is by definition unable to baptise others. Peter was spiritually impotent if we are to believe the mormonic song.
 * A way one can undoubtly see the influence of freemasonry in the mormon church is their attribution of 1st and second degree of priesthood, like a copy-paste of hebraic traditions, with some dubious change into it.
 * You are missing here also, the place of womens in the mormon church where political reasons, clearly prevail: It is for exemple today teached, that the upper god, is a goddess, the wife of God, and higher than him, and that she cant be named, and very little is known about her because she is OH! so high and special. It is also teached that the reason why women cannot be priest nor teach like priest, nor baptised, is that women are per birth closer to god than men, and that is therefor men only must try to come closer to god by manifesting their spirituality from an early age, all things a woman do not need to do as she has it all to begin with... It is also teach that men must fight harder to attain the same spiritual level as women have, and thats why women must do other things in the mean time: like give birth to more mormons members, do the cleaning and make food, and play missionary 1½ year of their life just before getting married, as soon as they return from mission time. All that good propaganda methods to secure the upcoming of new female members in that order, as well as keeping the youngsters in the old sheme of things, without risking having them asking certain questions, very up to date, very warms, and never answered by this church.
 * There is of course nowhere in the mormon books where anyone could actually read exactly the thing stated above, but they are very good at finding partial prooves of it when ever asked, and the teaching about it is very real. They also have it on print with draws, as regarding the different level of hell, with a special area for non mormon, and later on, it is directly sayed that no non mormon ever experience salvation. There is a big difference too between what is directly available as information source for non members, then for first members, and for members known in the church since some times, as well as there is a distinct grade of access ´to knowledge inside the church, not depending in how long you have been in the church nor for how many genereations. It is none the less, quiet accidental wether or not one gets to know certain things or not, making it rather diffuícult to make research. Some believers are kept beliving in one thing, and at the same time other have access to other scriptures, and prints who are often in direct contradiction with the first teaching and who touch very fundamentals part of the Churchs teachings.
 * Another interesting thing to noticed about this religious sect, is that nobody really agree about the deep meaning of it all, as a direct consequence of the facts stated aboves, and no one really know about its own religion, and most of the church members disagree completely about very basics and important parts of their religion, as the place of womens, and the existence of hell or not, and the place of non mormnon/other religions members after death, and the burning question of knowing if only mormons are saved, as all others are eternally doomed. All that even if those things are teached regularly every sunday there, inclusiv the fact I stated above, and special papers with draws and descriptions are passed, or distributed to all present in certain class.
 * To your knowledge I am not anti mormon, my standpoint is that there is scientifical proove that God does not exist, and am a warm adviser of a compleete interdiction of all religions on earth as they have a very negativ impact on humans psychology, and IQ, and EQ, as well as their ability to think on their own, and not only about their religion but on all matters.

that was for the personal, for all the facts listed above, I just wanted to state those things in a very clear way, giving a more balanced picture of the reality of this cult. Mormons can be very nice and helpfull people, nothing wrong about them nor that, but I am speaking here about the pendant and base of this pseudo religious cult, and being from Mircea Eliades classical school of myth and religious study, I can clearly see what is and what isn't from which and which religion or previous sect, or myth, as well as distinguish all borrowed elements from other cults.


 * I have known this church long enough to be familiarized with its custums and its teachings, or should I say various teaching?
 * I will also very much like to see on this discussion page as well as INSIDE the article, some writtings and facts who are not corresponding to the officialy aprouved official version of the church....


 * It will be specially nice to see real information and not mormon protectionism in an encyclopedia!
 * I found very disturbing the way some administrators have sustain that kind of behavior, and question wikipedia and the administrators in charge of the diverse mormonics article, on their honesty and religious believes.
 * Is the meaning of those article to inform about the subject at hand as wide and deep as possible, or are they a merely platforms for Mormonic propaganda, well orchestrated in various LSD conventions, and aprouved by presidents, well sitted in Utha?
 * Those questions need to be answered, as this mormons church protectionism and discriminatory deletion of kind-of-little-critical informations about this cult in wikipedia, has been going on for long enough.
 * It is about time to put an end to that.
 * I have make some research on it and founded very interesting exemples supporting my argumentation, and administrators name keep coming, identical, and....LDS members...

Surely a detail in contradiction with wikipedia rules about the democratical process of its system, non political as well, and of course, the importance of information, in front of private interests, inclusiv religious interests...
 * I have contacted the board of wikipedia about this matter and expect a clear answer on that matter any time.
 * I hope that this will end a hopeless battle between people coming with informations and people in charge of keeping their propaganda all clean.
 * There is not ONE word of critic or attempting critic in any of the articles and even discussions related to the articles about mormonism, and not even one exemple is given of true problems actual or ancient related to this cult.
 * It is worrying that such a control has been so effectiv for so long and unslep wikipedia central administration for so long.
 * I have watched for some times, and runed a test, on all articles and discussions pages on the subject: all, ALL contributions I wrote were deleeted, by the same administrator, who did the same to many before me, in less than 30 minutes!

No time to read the entire contain of my contribution in that time, no time too to any of the other contributers to see nor comment what I had written.
 * This controversial censorship must have an end.

Knowing important details, and very relevant information about even the basic set of mormonism believes non listed in the official site, cannot be a reason to be deleeted nor have its contribution called vandalism, without further explaination as to why and on the basis of what.
 * Doing so is making it impossible to anyone to ever hope to found real information about this cult, as anything being "against" the officialy approuved version is fought back by the mormon church, so that noone ever access anything about it.
 * Here is the opportunity to have both side presented in one place, with solid documentation, and first hand experience and informations.
 * Not something anybody can found in the documentations the church print every year in all languages, like it is the case with all that can be read about the subject in all wikipedia articles about mormon, but the reality of the church and what is really going on inside it, and what interpretation is made, concretely of the books they use, and what kind of other doctrines are in use, actually, in this church.
 * Wikipedia is being used as a advertising platform for this cult, completely clean slated from any real informations, and any adjonctions, who will go against the main stream of the church and what churchs officials wish outsiders to know about them, and even actual members...
 * I hope this will contribute sufficiently to this discussion and the article at large, to permit a real breakthrough in this area, and will ring the alarmclock for some members of the wikipedians board.


 * Kind Regards,

Sophie, --213.237.21.242 16:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for using the discussion page rather than the spamming that you have done on multiple articles. We welcome you to Wikipedia and look forward to other edits. However, you might want to gain a greater understanding of WIKI and how it operates. This is not a place for personal soap boxes and the stating of personal opinion. However, if you wish to quote or reference reputable scholars, you are strongly encouraged to do so. The diatribe above is personal opinion and is not appropriate for any the of the article pages to which you inserted earlier today. WIKI is a public encyclopedia and is used for a source of knowledge. It is not a place to state that which is true or false, but rather the opposite. As editors we seek to write balanced articles that provide all information, both pro and con, based on factual data. If you want to talk further, please contact me on my User talk page. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sophie, you obviously have strong feelings about the foundations and beliefs of Mormonism but the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide a forum for a particular point of view but simply to provide information about a topic. While the articles about Mormonism are not perfect, they have been thoroughly discussed and present a view that both pro- and anti-Mormon contributors have monitored for neutrality. Your (deleted) contributions were far from neutral. There are articles discussing criticism of Mormonism. I suggest you review them and add what you can -- but remember that an additional principle of Wikipedia is that this is not a place for original research. Maybe you should start a webpage of your own. Many of us would be interested in seeing your scientific proof that God does not exist. -- andersonpd 17:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

ANSWER TO Paul D. Anderson and Storm Rider
For your knowledge I have used wikipedia for more than a year and know very well how it function.


 * What I am stating here, far from being a personal opinion, are actual facts, and I do not need some scholars to tell me whats true or not, I do trust my own analitycal abilities as well as my perception sens to understand what I see, hear, and read, and consider myself as being able to make my own conclusions based on facts.
 * Personal opinions are what can be read on more than 50% of wikipedia so this remarque is rather biased and a bad attempt to try to dicredit me.
 * If you had read and understood what I wrote and was sincere enough, you will certainly know that I am stating facts.

The contain of the articles here and in all wikipedias articles about the subject are only a reflection of the officialy recognised opinion on the subject. By officialy I mean officials inside the mormons church.
 * On the other hand: just proove me wrong, I am waiting.
 * I also found necessary to adjust some of the critics binoculars by telling you that I started my contribution here only this morning, after having constated that many of the contributions deleeted before, were written by people who were not members of the church, and who had presented some "controversial", or just factual informations about this church.
 * By controversial I mean information non aprouved by presidents of the church.


 * Those seemingly innocent informations were removed as "Vandalism", (!) which I founded incredible, and saw the same thing repeating itself in the historic page of all the articles and discussion pages about mormon and related.
 * I so runned a test, by stating a few facts that I know about and who are very common to this church as they teach about them every sunday morning from 9 to 10 and from 10 to 11, and who, from an objectiv point of view should be only consider as a contribution to the subject.
 * Instead of it, they were ALL simultaneously removed from all sites at almost the same time from the same administrator, which email adress cannot be reached. How convenient...
 * All that was done less than 30 minutes after I had inserted my informations, making it impossible to this person to have read it.
 * So or this person is mormon and have the job to watch the articles for the church, or he has been contacted by those watchers from the mormon church who called my contributions for vandalism.
 * I found very strange and interesting to constate that all there is to read in those articles is nothing more nor less than what can be read in all the official materials given by the church.
 * So why make an article with a discussion page and not directly copy paste the essentials from the mormons official web site?
 * It will spare time, energy and lies for everybody.
 * About your suggestion of making my own site about the subject, yes, on the condition that it will be forbidden to any mormon to participate into it, as it is forbidden to any non officially stampled mormon to contribute to those pages and have anything inside the article.
 * You say thanks for my writings here and not in the article, know that I did also wrote in the discussion page, and that it was also removed with the rest.
 * I never spammed any articles and you calling that is your personal opinion as a mormon scholastic who have to proove how mormonic he can be at the cost of others, and who only wish to show how deep a believer he is and a true defender of the mormon value system as stampled by the elites of his church.
 * Congratulations.
 * I hope one day you will stop stopping and calling spam richer and deeper contributions than your own, and will look into it instead. Who knows? You might learn a thing or two.
 * I am not the alone one confronted to this censorship conducted by full members of the mormon church with various status inside wikipedia, that they consciously abuse in order to protect their own interests, and this must stop.
 * You spoke of mormon and anti mormon and having strong feelings, talk for yourself.
 * I am nor a mormon nor an anti mormon, which you deliberately choose to oversee from what I have written aboves, and my feelings are such not because of the mormons but because of the unfounded censorship and pro mormonic discrimination I have experimented there.
 * Concerning the scientifical proove og gods non existens, it is very simple, and the theory of the point zero of the univers together with the recent data brought by the sonds send into space 15 years ago and who came back in february and marsh, we have the proove of this theory compleeted, and thereby the proove that god does not exist.
 * Concerning the details of this theory you know perfectly well that this is not the place to discuss that topic, and I do not think you can be able to understand its details, to judge from your poor ability to make a conscious argumentation and analysis of the subject here at hand.
 * And this is my own opinion, so now you have a model to distinguish between a personnal opinion, and analysis based on facts, like my contribution was about.
 * For your knowledge too I am still in contact with this church and its members, and can ask them anytime for confirmation or negation of the facts that I advanced.
 * And believe me, I do have asked for confirmation, and in several occasions, as it was for me a reason to live this church, as I disagree with those change of theory and basis set of believes, as ones come further in rang inside the church.
 * I hope you are now both satisfied, and if you need any more real informations and contributions, or some petitesses to try to knock the bull down, be my guest.
 * Finally, neutrality can be discussed, and being 100% pro mormonic and 100% in total agreement with the church officials is NOT BEING NEUTRAL but its opposit!
 * It is call subjectivism.
 * My analyse of the church is based on concrete facts and direct first hand observations through years, and my knowledge of religions and mythologies at large.
 * Even if the objectivity of any can always be discussed, I believe to be objective here, and the article in its essence and foundations to be very subjectiv.
 * I do not call it propaganda platform of the churchs ideologies without having a solid ground for what i advance.
 * I base this judgement on what I know of the official version, and that can be reread in all those articles.
 * I had them test proof by mormon missionaries, who completely agreed with its contains... if this isnt a proove that what I say is true, and that those articles are too pro mormon and leave no place for other facts than what mormons church call facts,and agreed to be told to outsiders, so what is a proove for what I say?


 * Very Kind Regards,

Sophie --213.237.21.242 17:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are indeed stating facts, Sophie, then you should have no problems providing citations for all the staments you have made. In addition, using first-person pronouns is certianly no way to convice other contributors that you have a neutral point of view in your writing. If you are familiar with how Wikipedia works, you would also know that large blocks of text such as what you included should be wikified. We welcome contributions, but let's keep it professional. --Kmsiever 19:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

ANSWER TO Kmsiever
As you are a mormon too, your own contribution here is a statement for what I say, and I do not wish to comment anymore of those meaningsless remarks made by mormons adepts as they all summon up to the same.


 * You have no argumentations nor contra argumentions about things unknown to you as all you can do is repeat things you were tought up to say.
 * I do not see what you mean with providing statement for citations, please try to be more specific as it give no sense in the actual context, but nice try, I hope it gives you point in your religious system, so not all of us did waist their time.
 * I am wikified and know more about wiki than you do.

About professionalism, maybe you need a dictionary to know what it mean. Can you professionaly possibly mean that archiving furnitures makes you a professional in the subject at hand, do you?
 * I do not see at all what you mean by pronouns and neutral point of view, please eleborate, I didnt stated anything like that in my text so where do you have it from except your own pocket?
 * I am less anonymous than you are and more honest.
 * I tell truth and state the facts I know to be truth and who can contribute to the knowledge and encyclopedic definition of the topic.
 * And you, what do you do?
 * Protect something and yourself, in the name of the same thing that you protect...but you shouldnt, you know that it isnt necessery, if also you do believe in what you state to believe in.
 * But lets keep it professional, of course, what ever this does mean..Unless...
 * And á propos professionalism, why dont you anywhere in the discussion named anything that i adressed to begin with and any of the topics I have described?
 * Why do you try, you being all 3, to concentrate yourself in attempts to discreditate me?
 * Is it because you cannot argue against or because you know all of it as a fact, or because you are afraid to adress the subject?
 * In which case you shouldn't adress me personnally on this discussion page, but do so in your own, and advanced more appropriated questions.
 * This is an encyclopedia not an LSD meeting board nor a forum for beligerents view points.


 * I would like to see some serious participation here, and not those frivolus ones.
 * What is the difference between my statements and yours?
 * I speak from relevent data and facts known at first hand, you speak from things you heard that a prophete or evangelist, or apostle or president has say about some other earlier prophete sayed before him.
 * And this made you more trustworthy and your statement more elaborate than mine?
 * Where are your scholars here and your citations? (How typically mormon!!) You are not going to tell me that the citations of scholars you do have, and the only one, are those made by....apostles and prophetes and so on, all of them members of this church or cult or sect, well?
 * Tell me, dont you think that you are having a serious credibility problem here?...
 * So to turn the table, I will ask you the same question as you asked me, where are your credentials?
 * Where are your prooves?
 * There is none, we all know that, but whos teaching do you follow?
 * Can you name One known scholars as I was asked to on private page by one of your brother?
 * Instead to concentrate yourself on the facts at hand, you have choosen to agress me personnally, to discreditate me.
 * Dont you think you should pray for your souls tonight as doing so is so very against all your teaching, but so very mormonic as well, you see?
 * I hope you see.
 * Clean your front door instead to spit at your neighbourgs face. It will do some good for both.

--213.237.21.242 20:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that English is not your first language;it is also not one you have mastered, by Storm Rider
That is not meant to offend, but rather a way of saying that your writing is at times difficult to comprehend. Let us all just try to more clearly communicate with one another.:By references what is meant that we, as editors, do not state: Regarding polygamism with early mormons, Joseph Smith and his first group of 12 mens were using it all the time but hidding it from their wifes... Joseph Smith was married to more than 20 womens
 * Rather we would state something like:

Joseph Smith practiced polygamy in the early Mormon church. Fawan Brodie writes...insert whatever you want that proves the point(insert reference, book name, page #, etc.). Other leaders of the church also practiced polygamy...I hope you get the drift now. Of course what might be easier is to refer readers to the Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy article. You will also find it mentioned in the Joseph Smith, Jr. article among others. You might also want to read Criticism of Mormonism, Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Anti-Mormonism, Opposition to Mormonism, Polygamous Mormon fundamentalists, and Mormonism and Christianity. You might also find the article Exmormonismto be helpful because of your past relationship with Mormonism. There is no shortage of articles regarding Mormonism. In reading them you will come to understand that Joseph is alledged to have more than 30 wives; it just depends on which scholar is quoted. You will find examples in each article of how "facts" are cited and referenced. Yes, everyone does have opinions and everything you have stated above is your personal opinion and none of it is acceptable on WIKI. However, everything you have stated may be put, if it is not already there, with a referenced to a reputable scholar. There is a big difference in what we think and what we edit. For example, you have stated what you think is true. If we use your principle of editing the next person that comes along that "knows" the truth about the matter just reverts your statements because they know them to be false. I hope you see the problem that could result. To counter this we require reputable references for controversial statements. In this way your edits will not be reverted and become acceptable. I hope this helps. Also, if you are serious about being an editor please register. I am afraid there is already a registered User that goes by Sophie, but I am sure you will find a another name acceptable to you. Good luck and I do sincerely hope this has helped you become a more successful editor. Storm Rider (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

ANSWER TO STORM RIDER
There is nothing that I stated above who is to be found in any of the articles.


 * No critic of the church or no documentations or witnesses made by people who counter the official opinion of the church, have gained access to the article, which is comprehensible when I see how ferocely those articles are defended by members of this church.
 * To your knowledge I am not an ex member but an actual member, and I do not refer to my past contacts with the church but my previous and actual contacts with it.

As to registration I am the registrated Sophie, so you know it. My statements are in no way controversial and if it is your opinion that they are, please make your point about it as I cant see it.
 * As for references I have given them all: all what I have stated are part of the official teaching inside the church itself as it is teach about every sunday, and those topics have come again and again and been repeated the same way as I have discribed.

It is not an opinionated and personal view of the official scriptures, nor my moron way to interpretated it all, but facts as they occur in the church.
 * I do not have to citate people in regard to their personal identity, nor do I have to justify that I can clearly hear and understand the teaching, for so will you have too!
 * To corroborate with citations is superfluent when I am the central witness of those facts, and I will have to ask the other members to sign in and do the same to proove it, but in the end what would I have prooven????
 * What I mention are facts, and I dont see why you are having problems with it. You know very well how teaching is done inside the church so it must be why you insist for citations as you know there is none, except the mormon book itself and the book of covenents.
 * About editing and deleeting, it isnt my way to act, like in retaliation against others as you do.
 * I have never ever edited nor deleeted any contributions what so ever, but I know that you do not spare yourself in doing so to anyone who do not have the 100% same meaning as yourself.
 * This article and discussion is not a contest of opinion, nor a contest of whom has most power in wiki, and know most about it to can bannish the other, in spite of founding better to say and of being able to argument against, but is a, hopefully, serious place for mature persons to present clear and most richly documentated facts about different matters, with little regard to their divergence of opinion.
 * So please be a good wikipedian and stop threatening me just because you dont know what to say nor ask, and stop grabing at rules like last salvation to hide behind, as you dont have to be so scared.
 * Learn instead.
 * Does it ever occured to you that you might not know it all, and that you have to learn each and every day of your life? If indeed you set yourself to do so.
 * I do not have stated things that I believe to be true but that I know as a fact to be true.
 * There is nothing that I have stated who are second hands or stuff I have read somewhere, but all together things I was told at first hand by priest of the church, and by sisters of the church, missionaries, and members teaching at sunday schools, and priesthood teachings.


 * If what say priests from the church about the church, about Joseph Smith, about God, about his wife, about the construction of the church, and the way the different degrees of hell and heaven are articulated, and the different degrees of each of those, and the place of mormon members in it, and the place of other religions, and of non religious people in it, is to be untrue, or to be suspected of not being a part of mormonism and cannot be accepted in the article nor in this discussion page as a result of this, so you are all having the same problem as I, as You have all been teached at the same church by priest formed in that church, and are yourself priest, and thereby nothing that you have stated until now in any of the articles about the subject, made by any full member of the church, can be taken into account, as they will be all potentially caduque/ non relevant or untrue or non provable.
 * If I am wrong you are all wrong.
 * If my witness is not to be trusted or if you refuse to aloud me to voice my witness of the church, its set of believes, of those facts, so you denigrate all existing witnesses about the same church and set of believe, and facts, inclusiv you own.
 * As we all base those witnesses and references about this church on the same set of conduct and the same lineage of teachings.
 * You can shut your hears and eyes but you can't kill the truth.
 * And what is it about those facts that disturb you so much?
 * Please tell me what cause such a commotion, as all I see here to be strange is your reactions patterns and your very assertiv attempts to nail me as a person.
 * For what crimes?


 * Not being a very good and nice and neat wikipedian, or disagreeing with something you are yet unable to point out?


 * Have nice sacrements tommorrow, and for those in Utah, hils Mr and Mrs Browns for me.

Peirani --213.237.21.242 21:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You are nothing if not verbose by Storm Rider

 * I am not sure we are communicating very well.
 * I am not sure if I understand the point you are trying to make or you are not understanding any of my responses. What we do not do on WIKI is work or edit from a point of view of Original Research. This means we do not edit from a first hand position; our personal experience. Since you have used WIKI for so long you must be aware of this.

Some points that are incorrect. Mormons believe in three degrees of glory as described in 1 Corinthians 15:40-41. As you must know, LDS believe that baptism for the dead and other temple work will be done for every person that will have ever lived. If we do not do this work now it will be accomplished in the millenium. If that is so, every person that has ever lived will have these saving ordinances done for them. If that is the case, the Celestial Kingdom is not and will not be a degree only inhabited by LDS. If you have been instructed otherwise, then you taught incorrectly. I tell you now that the doctrine of the church is that the Celestial Kingdom is open to all those who receive the ordinances and everyone will receive those ordinances. They will be judged on the degree of truth they had in their lives and how well they lived those truths. There is no such thing as a Knight of Mormon or anything remotely similar to this. If you have any reference for this, please come forth with it. Your allegations about "hidden" or "secret" knowledge has long been an allegation by Anti-Mormons. No once have they ever proven that anything like that exists. If you are talking about temple ordinances, you would be wrong. Just google Mormon temple and you will find a plethora of sites that provide exact quotes of everything that goes on in a Mormon temple. It is hardly secret, but it is sacred to LDS and we do not talk about it...even with other LDS. Regarding polygamy. Your information is incorrect; Joseph had more than 20 wives sealed to him. To this day there were no known progeny from any of those relationships. Did he live with them as man and wife? No hard evidence exits to substantiate any of their marital realtionships. Many believe that he was sealed only, but did not live as man and wife. Others believe that he did have sexual relationships with some of his wives, but that is only supposition. All of this information is found in the article about polygamy. None of your information adds to what is already there and corrects many of your errors. Joseph Smith did not join a Masonic Lodge until he lived in Nauvoo. Your information about a much earlier period is simply incorrect. This also is covered in several of the articles. Your allegations regarding the Book of Mormon are simply wrong. There are several quotes that appear to come directly from the Book of Isaiah, but I have no idea what other books you are referring to. I have never heard an allegation that the Masons had "books" that Joseph Smith copied into the Book of Mormon. If you have evidence that proves this, please reference it in the appropriate article. I would suggest Book of Mormon. Your allegations about Peter are absured and patently false. Peter was an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ fully empowered to baptize. What you are attempting to say is that Mormons believe in an apostasy. After the time of Christ and shortly after the initial apostles died out, certainly prior to 300 AD the priesthood and the simple truths of the Gospel had been lost and the doctrines of men took the fore. There is no first degree or second degree of the Priesthood. There is an Aaronic priesthood that follows after the Levitical priesthood. You will also find the Melchizedek priesthood named after the priest mentioned in the Old Testament. The term degree is not used in the church. I suspect it is pure fabrication by you or some faulty information that you have been reading. Check out Priesthood (Mormonism) for further clarification. At no point in time has the LDS church ever taught that a Heavenly Mother, greater than God the Father, exists. However, it is logical based upon other doctrine to assume we have Heavenly Parents. We know nothing more than that and anything stated beyond that is supposition. The information you provided above is complete fabrication. It is not worth going further. Your information has very little basis in doctrines taught by the LDS church. If you would like precise references for any of the information I have provided above, just ask and I would be happy to provide it. I am really not sure how to improve upon this situation. You need to do some more reading, because you don't yet have a grasp on the teachings of the Mormon church or its history. Storm Rider (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
Your personnal attacks seems to have no end, now I am verbose, what will be next? that I am black and you dont like it? After all your previously attacks nothing will surprised me.


 * Am I writing in chineese or are you deliberatly misunderstanding and misinterpretating anything I write to avoid the subject at hand?
 * I have been stating many times that this was not a statement about personal research, and I can see that you keep repeating the same accusations times and times again, without ever taking a stand from where I left the last time, nor taking into account any of my answers.
 * It make this discussion sterile and you are making of it a controversy that wasn't there on the first place, so I will ask you to come down and to apply one of the basic rules on WIKI, that stand that you musn't supposed the worse on the other users, but the best, and that you musn't bull any user away, nor use racistic tones.
 * Concerning first hand experience you are doing nothing but it and all your verbose and empty criticism of me are based on your "knowledge" in a matter based on your personal experiences.

This apply to all the people who have contributed to this discussion and article without being deleeted: they are all mormons.
 * On WIKI, it is a rule that selfbiography are not to be written by the person it is about, so when writing the biography or history of mormonism, it shouldn't be done by mormons, at least on ONE of the site about the subject, in order to insure a minimum of objectivity on the matter.
 * You descriptions of the teaching are not points that I disagree about, nor facts that I have denied anywhere in my contributions.
 * On the opposit, and if you for ONCE took the pain to read what I write and not what you think I should write or what your big bag of prejudices hinder you to see, you will realize how ridiculous all your attacks are.
 * I have clearly stated that there is an official side and an official teaching, and that what is presented on most of the articles about the subject discribed in the big lines what is actually and factually teached inside the mormon church, but that those topics are subject to changement, that there is diversion from one interpretation to another, as well as there is complete denial of what was previously teached, and assertions being made who contradict what was first presented.
 * As I have enumerated some of it in my first contribution, those things constitute some of the pillars of the churchs doctrine and are therefor very important, and I therefor, founded very singular that they were changed with time on this way.
 * Reread me from the beginning and you might see the light.
 * Concerning knights I WAS SIMPLY REFERING TO THE APPELATION AS SOLDIER OF CHRIST applying to all members.
 * <<"Your allegations about "hidden" or "secret" knowledge has long been an allegation by Anti-Mormons. No once have they ever proven that anything like that exists. If you are talking about temple ordinances, you would be wrong. Just google Mormon temple and you will find a plethora of sites that provide exact quotes of everything that goes on in a Mormon temple. It is hardly secret, but it is sacred to LDS and we do not talk about it...even with other LDS.">> Storm Rider, citation.


 * Do you read what you write? and do you have read what I wrote?
 * Here is a very clear exemple of what I am warning you not to do so systematically: judge others on the basis of what you have been told and are well brain washed to judge as, but from what you can actually see and hear that those others are trying to tell you.
 * I have absolutly nowhere in my contributions used the words hidden, nor secret, nor temple ordinances, but you have the audacity to present those words as being directly taken from my own text, so blinded you are of your own certitudes and prejudices! I found incredible that you couldnt see it on your own!
 * I have extremely clearly stated, many times, and on several occasions and places, and repeated myself to death on each of my answer to your attacks, that the teaching I refer to, are USUAL TEACHING FOUNDING PLACE AT CHURCH ON SUNDAY MORNING.


 * Is it now clear enough and can you take the pain to remove your veil and read what I actually write and not what you presume I should have say.
 * Thanks. And hear yourself staging your speach, with "secrecy" and by "long been allegated Anti-mormons".. bouh! those bad anti mormons, have you been so brain washed and have you been assigned for so long to pursue the bad wiches that you can't actually see what is in front of your eyes?


 * If I was you, I will found it very worrying.
 * About polygamy you are wrong as already explained by one of your friend, the number of wifes differ depending on the sources, and he married them on the unique purpose to have legaly aprouved sexual relation with them, as muslim do in Iran for instance where they marry a woman for 2 months, and if there was children or not, is surely something for the different mothers to know about, and certainly not a matter for you to dissert about.
 * It is very laughable that you speak of it and insist about its progeny, when absolutely NO WHERE in my statements I have even mentioned this.
 * I only named the factor of polygamy as it was a subject treated before, and only as to corroborate the reason for polygamy in the early church, and if you read me and not your own mind and set of prejudices, you will see that I actually stated that Joseph Smith was against it after having talk with his wife who knew nothing about it previously to her husbands revelations about it, which also will imply that he wasn't living with them (moral!)and that the polygamy was in fact pressed by the other males around him, who managed to have this law made official AFTER Joseph Smiths death.
 * I shouldn't have to repeat myself and you should learn how to read instead.
 * About the exact date of JS joining the masonic lodges... really are we going to trespass repeating everything or are you completely unable to comment anybody on wiki?
 * Where exactly did I ever mention Navoo or any other place or any place or date in time about JS contacts with the Freemaconry?
 * I never named any...
 * I only mentioned his contacts with people from different maconic lodges, and thats it. Which you yourself aknowledge, so, where is the problem? the big dilema you seems to all have me conspiring about? where are the big disputes? and the very controversial statements?
 * Do you see any controversy, I mean, who are somewhere else than printed inside your mind, and that can be actually read in what
 * I wrote?
 * What you write is incredible, did I ever wrote that JS had a book of free maconery and that he copy it contains and put it inside the book of mormon?
 * No.
 * It is your very opinionated translation of what i actually stated, and who have nothing to do with what you are writting here.
 * That Peter couldn't baptised is often sayed in the church, and I was the first to be surprised. It is very often sayed that they were unable to follow his (Jesus Christ) precepts and that it is the reason they died of illness and some of the apostles were killed.
 * So did Joseph Smith, so the logical side of the story is slightly missing, but it doesnt seems to disturb them.
 * This is the teaching held by missionaries, as well as teachers inside the church. I had very hot discussions with them about the subject, so believe me, I am not dreaming, and it isnt something who was say accidentally or that I had misunderstood.
 * It is something who was with to retrieve me from the church as I couldn't agree to one more of those "changes to the original doctrine".
 * I was vey irritated by those things, and founded impossible to trust anything who was sayed, as it was subject to changement and different interpretations all the time. Once, I just stand up and went away.


 * And yes, mormon do believe in apostasie and talk about it, it is on what your church is funded on after all: the break down of the lineage of baptism, only fished up with Josef Smith after another fiasco attempt in latin america...
 * How could none of the baptised christian transmit their gift unless they were not really baptised, to begin with the apostles? Thats the theory I have heard.
 * They say that the apostles could at the beginning but lost their ability to do so there after.
 * I have also heard the one you have presented, that I could see the meaning of, so I was kind of unsure and disapointed and unsetled to hear something else later on.
 * And as stated before it doesnt mean that you have been teached the same in Utha or somewhere else, I am telling about the teaching I have see myself and others receive, and who were given by local memebers/priest, but also coming from the state, from Utha, from California, and so on... So don't bull me but scream at your owns and ask an explaination to your owns, not at me.
 * I am the carrier or messenger, and you know the saying: "dont kill the..."
 * I heard the version you present here the first times, for several months, but suddendly they begin to change the contain and it get worse and worse, it was like each time I was accepting one thing they were coming with another, until all the primal teachings brass together, so different it became to the original version.
 * First and second degree is aaronic and melshisedec priesthood, it is a reference to the level, and of course there is a level, the first one being the youngster and the second one the adulthood.
 * What are you trying to proove here? that you cannot comprehend simple facts as this one? What is wrong about it? It also exist in maconic loges with the same name as in the Mormon church and also goes by level denomination. Do you have a problem with that?
 * And you ask for prooves and books, go found it yourself when you are so keen at criticising others peoples research, why should you reap their fruits?! They are named after priests in the old testament, and if you knew something about hebrews history and about their religion you will also knew that those names became the denomination for specific degrees of priesthood, and area of occupations, with their own specific teachings, and that they have the same name as in the mormon church, as those models were borrowed from the hebraic priesthood system! Cant you think on your feet?


 * Now, I crave a complete apologize from you for all your insults and diffamations, for all the times where in your statement you are accusing me of lying, bringing false informations, and even to fabricate them!
 * I warn you, you have absolutely no fundament for your accusations other than your anger and desire of retaliation, who are very displaced as I dont see why I, as a person, should have to be blamed for the saying of OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH.
 * But of course it will never fall you in to actually consider the possible veracity of my witnesses so imbued you are of your selfrighteousness!
 * So now you are telling ME, that I am the one who created the story of the heavenly mother. This is the best. It is even spoken about in church after sacrement, and was even exposed once when one of the apostle came to visit us here with his wife. So I think you are the one not knowing enough or directly lying here for some obscure reasons.
 * The heavenly mother is teached about and they say to have very little informations about her, and that she is the wife of God. You seems to deny it all so I strongly recommend you that you ask about it to other priests in your church and in your community, and eventually to the president of the church you are under, who could transmit your request to one of the apostle and have it all sorted out, confirmed or infirmed, instead of throwing stones at my face, like an idiot who can't accept what he wasnt told by his closest. It is childish and very unproductiv.


 * I have done my readings thank you very much brother!
 * And I believe we do have the same documentation, so the problem can't possibly be there. It seems more to me a question of interpretation, and more even than this, a direct wish for many members to explain things in their own ways, and to give at the end, their church the solely power of redemption, by stating that they are the alone one able to baptize people ever.
 * And concerning the baptism of the death, well, I heard clearly being stated that not all will be so, and that nevertheless it isnt the same as being an active member inside the church, nor as being a direct descendant of a pioneer, and that special rules apply there. What you are stating sounds more like missionary teaching at the first months of enrolment, than anything I heard thereafter. You might be against all of it, and so was I, but it doesnt change the FACT that it is happening and that those teachings are founding place, even today, and that they are professed by very well preapared teacher, or so should one believe, specially the missionary and specialy those coming from Utha, who are priest, and have officialy been accorded the assignement to teach, and retreated couples from Utha teaching here as missionaries should also be people to be trusted in their knowledge of the church and its teachings, as well as in mix class, where men and womens are teached, from a certain age, and having a certain level in their knowledge of the scriptures, where special subjects are being teached about and discussed, and where this subject about hell was teached about and I was well surprised to hear something very paradoxal to what I first thought it was about.


 * It was very well discribed and with a specialpaper with a draw and the explaination s of it and it didnt ressemble to what I had seen before, thougth there was some similarities, and I had to get the all thing repeated several times and to ask for confirmation as I couldnt believe what I heard.
 * I do not have to apologize for what I know and am so friendly to teach you about, but you do have to do some attonement for your behaviour and your undeserved criticism of me because of the true statements that I bring here to you.
 * I hope that you do not consider yourself as being superior to for exemple me and having a superior intelligence or wisdom and an all clear eyed who permit you to see what others cannot grasp, because you are out for some disappointments.
 * Just learn to accept facts that you weren't prepared to, and who go against your believes or what you believe is going on, as you cant know all, nor be prepared to everything who can happen in a lifetime. You can dislike things but it does not mean that thing you dislike are unreal or inventions or unproovable, or never happened.
 * I hope to have cleared up some mess here and that you will be more attached in the future at seeing what is in front of your eyes and at reflecting at its meaning, and consequences, and will choose more appropiate and effectiv ways to grab this dilema.
 * In fact I shouldnt be telling you that, you should know that wisdom and light and gods true guidance come at a cost, often being your own barriers, that you have to transgress to go to the other side.
 * But as you stated it, you know your scriptures, so show me some application of it instead of blaring yourself in chapters and unlegitimate insults!...

Sophie --213.237.21.242 05:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Logic of Sophie I am not going to comment on Sophie's usage of English, by val42
. I speak a foreign language well enough, and English is one of the most difficult to learn (as a non-native speaker). Some editors who otherwise do good work also have trouble with English grammar and spelling. I'm also not addressing the doctrinal mistakes in what Sophie has said; on Wikipedia, if challenged, it is up to the editors to provide citations for their information. Nor am I going to directly address Sophie's ignorance of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. I am dealing with Sophie's own "What I am stating here, far from being a personal opinion, are actual facts" with Sophie's own words, wikipedia records, common knowledge, and (for #6) personal opinion (mine is as good as Sophie's).

Quoting from Sophie:

What I am stating here, far from being a personal opinion, are actual facts, and I do not need some scholars to tell me whats true or not, I do trust my own analitycal abilities as well as my perception sens to understand what I see, hear, and read, and consider myself as being able to make my own conclusions based on facts. Personal opinions are what can be read on more than 50% of wikipedia so this remarque is rather biased and a bad attempt to try to dicredit me. If you had read and understood what I wrote and was sincere enough, you will certainly know that I am stating facts. On the other hand: just proove me wrong, I am waiting. Proof #1: There is not ONE word of critic or attempting critic in any of the articles and even discussions related to the articles about mormonism, and not even one exemple is given of true problems actual or ancient related to this cult. (See Mormonism Criticism, on the page you says contains no such information. This information existed before you started editing this article.) Proof #2: About your suggestion of making my own site about the subject, yes, on the condition that it will be forbidden to any mormon to participate into it, as it is forbidden to any non officially stampled mormon to contribute to those pages and have anything inside the article. You say thanks for my writings here and not in the article, know that I did also wrote in the discussion page, and that it was also removed with the rest. I never spammed any articles and you calling that is your personal opinion as a mormon scholastic who have to proove how mormonic he can be at the cost of others, and who only wish to show how deep a believer he is and a true defender of the mormon value system as stampled by the elites of his church. (See your edit on the 10th that was reverted by Mike Rosoft who, according to his own user page, is a hard-core atheist.) Proof #3: Concerning the scientifical proove og gods non existens, it is very simple, and the theory of the point zero of the univers together with the recent data brought by the sonds send into space 15 years ago and who came back in february and marsh, we have the proove of this theory compleeted, and thereby the proove that god does not exist. Concerning the details of this theory you know perfectly well that this is not the place to discuss that topic, and I do not think you can be able to understand its details, to judge from your poor ability to make a conscious argumentation and analysis of the subject here at hand. (See definition of 'simple' to see why you just contradicted yourself.) Proof #4: No critic of the church or no documentations or witnesses made by people who counter the official opinion of the church, have gained access to the article, which is comprehensible when I see how ferocely those articles are defended by members of this church. (See #2 above.) Proof #5: There is nothing that I have stated who are second hands or stuff I have read somewhere, but all together things I was told at first hand by priest of the church, and by sisters of the church, missionaries, and members teaching at sunday schools, and priesthood teachings. [But from earlier in your soliloquy:] I speak from relevent data and facts known at first hand, you speak from things you heard that a prophete or evangelist, or apostle or president has say about some other earlier prophete sayed before him. (So, you're "first-hand experience" derives from second or third-hand experience. That, in fact, makes Sophie's experience third-hand, at best.) Proof #6: If I am wrong you are all wrong. (Translation: "Listen very carfully Norman: Sophie is lying.") And some advice to Sophie which comes from Sophie:

So please be a good wikipedian and stop threatening me just because you dont know what to say nor ask, and stop grabing at rules like last salvation to hide behind, as you dont have to be so scared. Learn instead. Does it ever occured to you that you might not know it all, and that you have to learn each and every day of your life? If indeed you set yourself to do so. [...] But of course it will never fall you in to actually consider the possible veracity of my witnesses so imbued you are of your selfrighteousness! [...] I do not have to apologize for what I know and am so friendly to teach you about, but you do have to do some attonement for your behaviour and your undeserved criticism of me because of the true statements that I bring here to you. I hope that you do not consider yourself as being superior to for exemple me and having a superior intelligence or wisdom and an all clear eyed who permit you to see what others cannot grasp, because you are out for some disappointments. On the other hand, we may all just be feeding a troll. [Hint: If real, Sophie will understand his own words. If a troll, this soliloquy will continue.]

Val42 06:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer missing as being illegaly deleeted by administrator  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa!, mormon sympathisor and friend of val42 and of storm rider, and being retrieved from the archives without reasons, and therefor completely unavailable even for control, which is against wikipedias rules of good conduct for administrators. This Administrator, most confortably disepearing to holyday on the same day, must be sanctioned for unusual behaviour and contraproductiv actions and for enfringing the minimum of neutrality and of equality that his status crave.

--213.237.21.242 12:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)