User talk:Descartes1979/archive1

Mormonism and history merge proposal
Please weigh in on the merger proposal between History of the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism and history. I saw that you were a recent contributor of one of the pages in question, and thought you would be interested.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your courtesy in letting me know about the proposed merger. Mormonism and history got a lot of attention shortly after it was created, but it's been on everyone's back burner for months now. I'd be glad to work with you on improving it.--John Foxe (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for your imput to our discussion, but please don't make up your mind just yet. I placed a number of Historiography type ideas on the discussion page and the beginnings of an outline.  I'm truly not trying to create another article critical of the movement.  But, as a historian, historical criticism is a valid mechanism.  We are unique in our views of Mormonisms place in history and our strong interest and promotion of historical topics in the church.  Just think about geneology, family history, and temple work.  A history project for the eternities!  I know JFoxe will be a strong force on this article, and will generally have a critical perspective.  But the whole idea of Mormon historiography and our historic world view will get lost on History of the Latter Day Saint movement.  It wil become just another paragraph in criticism, when, in my opinion, that's not what it is about at all.  Best............ WBardwin (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Akish
I removed the prod because I think there will probably be books that will have content discussing him, from a LDS perspective of course, but discussing him. They will all ultimately be speculations based on the short and cryptic scriptural text, but none the less the discussions will be enough to be notable. I may be wrong- -I admit I havent looked for this, but then again Im not an expert on the subject. simplest thing is to ask at the Workgroup, and if they cant find any, take it to Afd. DGG (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC) (I added 2 quick ones from Google Books, but I'm reasonably sure there will be more)DGG (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Mergers
I would urge caution on some of these as far the time for comment allowed. You are moving a little quickly and some of the voters are not known to most of the common editors. Give it at least a week or two before closing and merging. It will ensure that none of us that support the mergers see it contested in the future or that we don't cause a rancorous environment for lack of patience. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment on giving time for voting. I couldn't agree more.  With the last merge, I moved quickly because there didn't seem to be any opposition whatsoever, and it was a slam dunk in my mind (maybe I was wrong to assume as much - I guess we will see) - so in the spirit of "being bold", I moved forward.  For this merger (Angel Moroni) there is a larger potential for opposition, and I planned on giving it more time.  Thanks for the reminder! --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate boldness and I think what you are doing is improving Wikipedia; however, when it comes to religion even things we may think are the most obvious can still offend others. For examples, I would have never thought of the issue Snocrates brought up. Problems develop not in what we know or don't know, but when we don't know that we don't know about something that we offend others. Keep up the good work. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rayhade
Hey, I've never actually participated in a block. I can never tell the meatpuppets from the SPA's from the honest users that just have poor communication skills. And I'm certainly not interested in which side "wins" the edit war as long as the sources are notable and correctly attributeda and cited. If you think it will help by blocking this user, I'm ready to support it. Doesn't seem like he's too amenable to the standard welcomings and warnings. Just drop me a link to the discussion and I'll put in my two cents. Thanks. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon
A tag has been placed on Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have completed my cut at Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon, and do not believe it should be deleted. You marked it as an article for speedy deletion when I first created it, because I had only put one small phrase in there.  Sorry about the confusion - please review and let me know if you disagree.  --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reputable references
Descarte, I have been viewing the Criticisms article regarding RR. Is Abanes a reputable reference because he is published? He certainly does not meet the standards of being a historian, archaeologist, etc. He does not even have a college education. I am not saying that Ash is reputable, but then again I also don't think of Abanes as a reputable reference; he is more a sensationalistic journalist who writes from a predetermined position. Thoughts? --Storm Rider (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of thoughts:


 * 1) Although Abanes may not have a college education, according to his wikipedia article here, he is a renowned author/journalist. Also, as far as I can tell, he did not self publish his book on Mormon history, which was published by Thunder's Mouth Press.
 * 2) A review of wikipedia policy is warranted here - see WP:sources. The reason why I question Jeff Lindsay and Michael Ash, is because they self publish, or publish on wikis - that is, there is no evidence of a rigorous review of what they are writing for accuracy, which is especially relevant in a complex field such as archaeology.  I could go out and start a website and write a bunch of things about archaeology, but if I don't have serious experience or education, or at least have my articles reviewed by archeaologists, then how can anyone else reasonably rely on that information?  That one of the main points of WP:sources.
 * 3) I don't think we should remove any of the information in Criticism of Mormonism though, according to my knowledge, a lot of these arguments are correct, they just need to be cited better. For example, I would like to see this article replace all references to Jeff Lindsay, with references to Hugh Nibley or B. H. Roberts.  The same goes with critical sources - lets get rid of the random websites and amateurs, and replace them with notable critics like Fawn Brodie, the Ostlers, and the Tanners.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure we are saying different things regarding Lindsay or Ash; I just don't think that because Abanes has published a few book makes him qualified to comment as an expert on Mormonism. He is a writer; not an expert on any given field. Does that make sense to you? Just because someone can write in an interesting manner does not make them qualified to write on the intricacies of Buddhism or any other religion. Abanes is not a source of research, but a source of regurgitation of the work of scholars who have devoted time and effort to the field. It sounds more harsh than it should, but I think it is a correct assessment. Abanes does not begin to be the equivalent of a Tanner or Brodie. Abanes is not someone where there is a rigorous checking of facts similar to the previous two and his writing reflects that. Well, that's my soap box and I will quit wasting your time. I think we are on the same page. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that

Please explain
When you say "looking for Egyptian in the Book of Mormon is like looking for Swahili in Shakespeare. Let's reduce 30 examples to just a couple, which can be easily explained as dumb luck," it is hard to think anything else that you are on a Jihad against the Book of Mormon. Please explain why we should not think that. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC) It seems to me that saying "looking for Egyptian in the Book of Mormon is like looking for Swahili in Shakespeare" is a smear against the Book of Mormon. Frankly, I find it hard to see as anything else. And say what you will about me, but I'm not the one trying to to suppress facts or to delete information. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good grief Das - now you are completely misquoting me. What is the problem?  Two other wikipedia editors saw my proposal, and thought it was perfectly reasonable.  I am not on a Jihad against the Book of Mormon, and you are the only person that thinks that.  I am trying to put Nibley's research into context.  I don't see why you can't understand that.  I can accept that you disagree with the merge proposal, even if I can't understand why - but the way the vote is headed, it is likely to get merged.  These kinds of articles get merged all the time, it is nothing new.  How is summarizing the content of Nibley's argument a smear campaign against the Book of Mormon?  I am having a VERY hard time believing that you are an objective and experienced editor on the wikipedia when you spread inflammatory statements about me.  Lets drop this argument and focus on the issue of the content of the article - because further discussion along these lines is pointless. --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Further Discussion
I agree, let us move the discussion to your talk page. Every now and then I purge mine of old stuff. Nothing personal, I assure you. And I'm also waiting for Dr. Nibley's book through Interlibrary Loan so I can give thorough references. And it seems we are agreed that "Unity of Religious Thought" does not apply to names. Das Baz, aka Erudil 21:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for response
Thanks for your response to my personal question. You do seem to have a good understanding of LDS history, but you obviously focus on the negative perspective. It is not surprising; when studying rough stones it is shocking to find that God works with very weak vessels. You might want to take a step back from Mormonism and look at the Judeo-Christian position as a whole. What you will find is a pretty sorry lot of human beings; yet, they are the greatest prophets of the Old and New Testaments. You have a man who fathered children from his two daughters to men who studied at the feet of Son of God for three years and yet still denied him; and virtually all of them came from lowly station; and yet they were all instruments in the hand of God. I studied with a Rabbi for a few months to understand the Old Testament; it would be worth it. I don't think it is completely necessary to it is worth gaining a understanding of what type of men and women were the founders of Judaic religion.

When we study religion it is good to keep a jaded eye, but that eye must be applied uniformly. From a believers stand point, I also have to say that being a skeptic is healthy, but not if completely overpowers faith. I still stand firm that there is no better teacher than the Holy Spirit; I do not understand everything, but know that God does. I would have preferred that everyone he used had been perfect and not simple men, but he takes the weak and makes them strong. Joseph said the same thing of himself; he was weak, full of imperfections, but he tried to follow the Spirit. Best of luck in your search for truth, which I hope you continue to seek. --Storm Rider (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Need your help
I need your help over at the Ex-Mormon article! I've been trying to clean it up (it needs some work; I've been focusing on the low-hanging fruit) but one editor, Greenw47, has been repeatedly reverting cleanup tags, templates, etc., with little or no explanation, even after I provided a detailed explanation on the talk page. I get the feeling he's assuming I'm there to impose Mormon POV, but in reality I'm making syntax and reference check edits. Editors must not frequent the article because it's only been the two of us over the past few days. I put in a request at Third opinion, but thought you might want to weigh in as well. Tell me if I'm off-base in my edits, by all means, but I think they're pretty reasonable. Thanks! --TrustTruth (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The way he's heading, it looks like in not too long, if he doesn't watch himself, Descartes will be able to contribute on the Ex-Mormon article with some first-hand experience. I've seen it happen before, and from my POV I can see all the symptoms.---76.121.210.115 (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting post from anon - seems pretty judgmental though. Are Mormons better people that Ex-mormons anon?  Is that what I should be watching out for?  You talk about symptoms as if I have a disease.  Perhaps you care to elaborate? --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Scrying / Divining Rods
The best source for this will probably be Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling. --TrustTruth (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Diving Rods (Criticism of mormonism)
Descartes,

Regarding your edits - No problem. I have no problem with "well established" facts, I just didn't agree with your comments and methodology. Your commentary was "This is true and I'm sure of it.. it's well established.. I'll find a source for it later".

No trouble there, except it just isn't the wikipedia way. Sorry if you felt it was malicious or troublesome. No trouble intended.

Regards,

Ryancwa (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that Ryancwa - and no offense was taken. However, I am not sure I agree with your statement about the "wikipedia way".  There is one rule above all rules on the wikipedia, and that is ignore all the rules.  So while there is guidance, on this or that, the wikipedia community is supposed to bend or break rules for the greater good.  In our particular case, I knew that the statement was true - I didn't have a source right then - I reverted the change - I promptly found the source within a day - all of which I believe was for the greater good.  I can understand the skeptical position though.  Either way it doesn't matter because now the statement is sourced, and we are good to go. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

speedy
You are perfectly correct that Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University cannot stand as a separate article, However, "this topic is not notable enough, and can easily be incorporated with the BYU article" is not one of the possible reasons for speedy deletion. Only those reasons specifically listed in WP:CSD can be used. Everything else must be deleted via PROD or AfD. In this case, though, what you really wanted to do was a merge, and that';s what would normally be done after an AfD for an article of this sort. The way to propose it is WP:MERGE -- I found the appropriate article and put on the right tag. If the merge is refused, then the usual way of getting it done is to take it to AfD where it will be the alternative to deletion.DGG (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Mormonism article
More and more I am beginning to agree with the idea you brought up a while ago that this article is a POV fork and that most of its content should be spread out among several different articles. If anything, this article should be pointing to other articles, with high-level summaries, and probably shouldn't be a place to lay out all the evidence. In addition, I still think it should be split into at least two articles (Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement and Criticism of TCoJCoLDS) for purposes of clarity. What do you say -- can we get the ball rolling on the split if there isn't any opposition to it? --TrustTruth (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank your for the Barnstar
Thank you for the barnstar for my recent edit of the Church Historian's fragment segment of the Book of Abraham article. It was an unexpected compliment. I hope to be able to continue to apply the same level of scrutiny and objectivity to the rest of my edits. DWmFrancis (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WPBYU Collaboration for May
This month's WP BYU Collaboration of the Month is J. Reuben Clark Law School. I look forward to working with you to improve the article. Thank you! --Eustress (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Technology and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
You might want to take a look at WP:PROD- removing the tag is proper procedure for contesting one. If the tag is removed, it's not supposed to be re-added. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Three Witnesses
Good call on the addition of that new paragraph.--John Foxe (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved from User_talk:Das Baz
The following discussion is being moved from Das Baz's talk page, in reference to our difference of opinion on the merge from Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon, and Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. Over the course of the last few months Das has attempted to selectively remove parts of our discussion, in what appears to me to be a deliberate attempt to cast me in a bad light. Das, I have lost a lot of respect for you. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Respect for the Book of Mormon
It seems to me that saying that analyzing Egyptian in the Book of Mormon is like looking for Swahili in Shakespeare is an intemperate and impolite attack on the Book of Mormon. That got my dander up. If you refrain from such attacks I shall refrain from attacks of mine own. I still say, bottom line, that there is absolutely no need to merge the article with any other article and the proposal to do so is a very bad idea. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC) No, I am not trying to mount a smear campaign aginst you. I am trying to protect the Book of Mormon from your smear campaign against it. It is very hard to believe you cosider the Book of Mormon to be a book of scripture when you treat it with such contempt. And it does not seem at all to me to be reasonable to try to reduce the amount of facts and information that are available. That seems to me to be very much against the spirit of Wikipedia. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Das, I didn't mean to offend, and it was most certainly not an attack on the Book of Mormon, which I consider to be a volume of scripture. I am challenging Nibley's scholarship, not the Book of Mormon.  I am quite surprised by your vehement opposition to my very reasonable merge proposal.  You are showing yourself as someone with a very strong POV - perhaps it would be good for you to read the Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV.  Oh, and I saw on someone's talk page that you are referring to my proposal as "nefarious" - are you trying to mount a smear campaign against me?  --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see further response on my talk page. Here's hoping we can stop arguing and focus on the issues. --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Unity of Religious Thought
If you read Salmon's article that is cited, he (among several other scholars) note that all religions have common themes. Virgin birth, atonement, creation, and even spirituality in general are things that are shared across many faiths, including the heathen faiths in ancient Egypt. Also remember that many of the characters in the Bible such as Abraham, Adam, Eve, Satan, God, Jesus Christ - all people who exist in the mythology of other religions outside of Christianity.

So, Salmon is arguing that if there are parallels between one text and another, that does not mean that one text was the origin of the other, or that it lends credence to one or the other. So the point is, if there are parallels between the Book of Mormon and other languages, or texts, how do we know it isn't coincidence, or a "unity of religious thought" - the fact that all religions have common themes? If you remember the Book of the Law of the Lord used in the Strangite branch of Mormonism also has many parallels between other texts, and extensive use of Chiasmus, but we both know that it doesn't mean that their book is really a translation of an ancient document.

Take all of this together, and then you have FARMS and Hugh Nibley, who are finding parallels left and right, even mistranslating words and phrases to bend them into parallels that they believe are there (if you don't believe that, read Salmon's article where he proves these mistranslations). The fact of the matter is, there is no methodology behind this "parallelomania", and as such it is difficult for mainstream scholars to accept these things at face value. This is even a problem in other studies outside of Mormonism.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not see how this supposed "unity of religious thought" can cause names to be similar or identical in unrelated texts. Is the name Paanchi the same in the Book of Mormon as in ancient Egypt because God inspired prophets to give the same name to people in ancient Egypt as in 19th century America? I find this very hard to believe. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with you to an extent - a unity of religious thought refers more to ideas and sentence structures. Names are argued to be more of coincidence by the scholars in question.  For example, even Paanchi is not the exact same in Egyptian as it is in the Book of Mormon - there are slight differences.  There are no exact matches - Egyptian is a dead language, and heiroglyphics and hieratic (the written language of ancient egypt) were both dead by the 3rd century A.D.  As you see there is a fundamental problem with calling the matches "exact" because no one can be sure, they are our best guesses.  Check out Egyptian hieroglyphs and Hieratic.  The fact of the matter is, if you read the parallelomania article, it becomes quite clear that if you have a bias, as does Hugh Nibley, you can bend those matches and they will support either point of view. --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line is: This "unity of religious thought" applies to themes but not at all to names. So to mention this theory while discussing names is just smoke and mirrors. Meanwhile, a whole lot of names have been suppressed and deleted to make room for a theory that does not apply at all to the study of names. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No Das - you didn't read my post thoroughly, or the article I referenced. I am not trying to create smoke and mirrors - this is something historians and linguists have been discussing for some time in reference to Mormonism.  I agree with you that a unity of religious thought is not applicable to names.  But coincidence is.  Read the article I referenced by Salmon, he explains it very clearly (it is accessibly on the Internet).  And by the way, I am still waiting for those page references from Nibley for the matches that you say are suppressed.  If you can't give a reference, then how do I know you are not exaggerating the parallels Nibley claims, or even making them up?  This whole debate goes away when you can give us the references required to establish the facts. (quotes and page numbers, so we can cross check) --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Selective deletion
Das, I don't appreciate how you are selectively removing my words from the conversations I have posted on this page - it appears that you are deliberately trying to cast me in a bad light. If you are not comfortable with me posting here, then we can move the discussion to my talk page. I never delete any posts there, and the entire conversation can be preserved. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dark days in Canada
I wonder if you've read the original? Doug Weller (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Two more links about the 'Dark days'  Doug Weller (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Brigham Young University Collaboration for June 2008
Thanks to all those who helped out with May's collaborative project (J. Reuben Clark Law School) and other BYU-related articles. I look forward to working with you on this month's article. Go Cougars! --Eustress (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Technology and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
An article that you have been involved in editing, Technology and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Technology and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 09:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally! This article sucks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Theodule Deveria
A tag has been placed on Theodule Deveria requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - - [ The Spooky One ] | [ t c r ] 05:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)