User talk:Entropy's 1

Wikipedia links

 * Group concensus is ultimately what is presented in articles. Article contents tend to swing, over long periods of time, from very positive to very negative presentations on church material.  But most of the time, the articles stay in a carefully balanced state, because editors stay vigilant and work with one another.  Your material was reverted, by me, because it was strongly LDS POV.  It also contained some common LDS ideas and views (taught by the modern church in lessons and manuals - see your initial source above) which are sorted and presented to focus on doctrinal issues (i.e. Corrolation Committee!), but are most often not sequentially presented or historically oriented.  Modern manuals and other LDS teaching materials tend to present the church's doctrine and viewpoints as if they sprung full blown on the day the Church was first organized.  While useful in classes and missionary lessons, that was not so.  Joseph received information 'line upon line, precent upon precept' until he, shortly before his death, passed authority and responsibility for the church, its structure, and its people to the Quorum of the Twelve.  And, of course, 19th century, 20th century and modern revelation continue to contribute to our understanding of the gospel.  If you want a read, I would recommend LDS author and historian Richard Bushman's recent biography of Joseph Smith.  Very well done, well sourced, it both historically and culturally presents a view of a 19th century man in the midst of a miracle.
 * In regard to one of your issues, the modern LDS church begins missionary approaches and lesson manuals with the First Vision, probably because it ties in doctrinally with the 1st Article of Faith and LDS views of the Godhead. I taught the 2010 lesson on our Heavenly Father today myself.  But historically, although Joseph may well have talked to select individuals about the First Vision early in his life, early records of statements on the Vision are unknown and so must be assumed (by historians and so the editors here) not to exist.  Early converts to his views, including a family of my ancestors in 1832, joined him because of the visitation of the angel Moroni, the miracle of the golden plates, and the translation and publication of the Book of Mormon.  Journals and family records, including one of my ancestors', talk of the Book of Mormon and their personal witnesses of the Spirit, they also talk about the search for a Church after the pattern of the Bible.  Wilford Woodruff's early journals are an excellent example of this, and have been used as a viable source.  No known records of the very early period speak of the First Vision, and its lessons about God and revelation, as a reason for aligning with Mormonism.  Joseph, members of the Twelve serving missions in England, and other leaders in the United States, began to publically present information on the First Vision in about 1839-1840.  This seems to have tied into several revelations received around that time, later published in the Doctrine and Covenants, which clarified the nature and roles of the Godhead.  The first British "mission pamphlet" was prepared by Apostle Orson Pratt (if I remember correctly) and contained information on the First Vision, the visitation of Moroni, and the return of the priesthood by heavenly messengers.  The accounts were written in the context that the heavens had opened and God's direction was returned to the earth.  Joseph Smith also wrote several accounts (including the Wentworth letter and Joseph Smith History 1:21-26) during this same time period and used the topic in several sermons recorded by Wilford Woodruff and others.  Lucy Mack Smith's written account (which you reference) was written after Joseph's death, and the first draft contains no information about the First Vision.  This first draft is held in archive and has been well documented.  Lucy Macks' material was modestly edited by the woman who helped her compile the boook, and the final published version includes an account of the First Vision, echoing one of Joseph's accounts.  Again, this is a post 1840 source.  All of these are facts - and can be presented here because they are well documented.  So how does this historic, documented information assault your sensibilities?
 * I'm glad to see that you went back to your source (LDS manuals are at best a 'tertiary source' under historical guidelines) and are willing to do further research. But, last week, I believe, I looked over the contribution history under this user name.  Sadly, you had not made any additional efforts to contribute at that time.  How am I, a single editor, keeping you from contributing?  Of course, you may be one of the IP editors (obviously 71.221.130.243) who hit and run on various LDS articles.  IP editors, because of their anonymous status, are often seen as suspect, even by tolerant editors, and reversions are very common.  I and at least one other editor (on the summary article Mormonism/talk) have responded to your statements, but you do not seem to understand the system here.  You need patience, dedication and a willingness to research to work effectively here -- and so to contribute to the best possible view of the Church and its mission.  Editors do not, however, do well with a defensive attitude or a 'mission' call.  Best wishes, none the less.  WBardwin (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me understand one thing about your edits. You removed Peer Reviewed articles from my corrections to the Mormonism article. What constitutes an acceptable source that is not of an anti-lds origin? A peer reviewed scholarly work does not seem to meet your criteria, why not? [User: Entropy's 1]

Also, here are some more "facts" about Joseph Smith's telling of the First Vision: As early as 1829 a Palmyra, New York newspaper satirist Abner Cole wrote a column called "The Book of Pukei" making fun of Smith's claim to have seen God and Jesus Christ among other things (Russell C. McGregor and Kerry A. Shirts, "Letters to an Anti-Mormon," 1999, p. 160). Also see The Reflector, in Palmyra, New York, reported in 1830 that "Oliver Cowdery and 'friends' were preaching in Ohio to the effect that "Joseph Smith had seen God frequently and personally" (R.L. Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision Through Reminiscences," BYU Studies, Vol. 9, Num 3 (Spring 1969), pp. 373–404, see p. 401. Entropy's 1 talk

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This edit
I'm a bit confused by this edit. You say the information is "crucial to understanding", but you actually removed information in the edit. To me, the sentence doesn't make much sense to a reader unless the part you deleted is included. Is it not a fairly significant point that Smith claims (1) he saw God and Jesus, and (2) that they were separate individuals?

Also, in general articles about religious movements, we don't generally include links to denomination specific websites, which is why mormon.org would not be appropriate at Mormonism. Otherwise the external links section will be cluttered with links from every denomination in Mormonism. Mormon.org can be (and is) included in LDS Church-specific articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it is fairly significant on both points 1 and 2. If you will look again you will see that both points are rewritten and still there.


 * As to the other I don't get it. When I started working on this article there were no links I could remotely call neutral. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that runs "Mormon.org" is the largest part of the Mormonism movement. This is not disputed is it? What I think is the problem is anything written by members of the church or church websites are not acceptable. However flagrantly Anti-Mormon sites are all acceptable. How is this appropriate? And the Catholics or Methodists don't have to put up with this abuse, why should I accept it? Entropy's 1 talk (UTC)


 * Yes it is fairly significant on both points 1 and 2. If you will look again you will see that both points are rewritten and still there. I thought so, but the only reason they are there is that I added them back in.
 * Mormon.org would be an appropriate link to include in, say, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The thing with an article like Mormonism is that it is an article about a reasonably diverse movement, which is made up of the LDS Church and a bunch of other smaller groups. I don't think it's true that anything written by a Latter-day Saint or endorsed by the LDS Church is necessarily inappropriate. The guideline we would follow is WP:RS, which calls for using reliable, published sources, and things published by church members could meet this standard. The most important point is probably the policy of WP:N, which mandates that articles must address topics from a neutral point-of-view. So obviously we can't use only church sources, and in an article about Mormonism it wouldn't be proper to link to an LDS Church website but exclude links to the FLDS Church website, for example. So to avoid having to link to a million sites, we generally would just exclude ones that aren't presenting a neutral view.
 * Obviously some non-Mormon writers who write about Mormonism will also not be presenting what you would call a "neutral" point of view, and that's why it's important to strive to find more academic sources since these are likely the most balanced in their treatment.
 * One final point—I don't really care if you refer to material as "anti-Mormon", but I would just point out that throwing around the word "anti-Mormon" (or "anti-anything", for that matter) will quickly lead to users not taking you too seriously. If you think a source is biased, just say something like, "this source doesn't seem to me to be neutral in its point of view". If you say that, most people on WP will know what you are saying, and you will avoid being shunned by some users who think anyone who calls anything "anti-XXXX" must themselves have some sort of agenda and are not neutral editors. This is because we must all remember that WP is not a very good place to try to defend one's personal beliefs, since presenting a neutral point of view is generally incompatible with deeply-held beliefs. For that reason, I myself take the advice of this guideline and try to avoid editing articles about topics which I'm closely involved with. This doesn't mean you cannot edit on Mormon topics if you are a Mormon yourself, it just means you should be aware of the hazards and pitfalls, as it may help to explain why others react the way they do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Give me strength. You are telling me that LDS sources are relevant on WP? According to the edits you have placed today, how can you possibly claim to be taking the higher scholarly path when you seem to have unreasonable bias against Mormonism. Have you heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? It basically says that whatever we study, we bring our own personal bias with us and it tampers with the object of our interest.  I believe you do have a bias, like everyone else. I believe that simply not admitting to it openly does not make it go away. You know exactly where I stand.


 * I find it difficult to take what you are saying seriously because this neutrality argument is trotted out every time you wish to defend the untrue defamation of this topic. You wish to help me? How about cooperating in building this article into something better. The "I'm right and your wrong" every time mentality is what I seem to get. Members of the Church do get fired up when they visit the WIKI sites because they are so bad. Shouldn't that bother you? I can't speak for the other groups in Mormonism because I don't know most of them very well. If what you say is genuine, then I have no problem accepting it and working with you to build a new site. However this is difficult for me because you have defended what could also be referred to as hate speech. Every time you reverse the smallest edit or wait until I am gone and take out my contributions, your credibility with me diminishes. (Entropy's 1 12:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC))Entropy's 1 Talk (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was trying to help you become acclimatized to WP and some its guidelines and culture. I'm an admin on WP, so that's kind of one of my roles, but you seem to be taking a rather jaundiced view of my attempts, so I'll withdraw from that. I apologize that I have offended you in some way. Of course everyone has biases—some more than others, depending on the topic, of course—but accusing me as "defend[ing] what could also be referred to as hate speech" does seem to be a wee bit extreme, so I would just advise you to chill on the accusations and the assumptions about what you know about other users, otherwise you are bound to run into trouble on WP. (By the way, it's not a good idea to add material back into the article when there has been consensus on the talk page that adding it is something that should not be done. I'm sure you'll soon figure that out for yourself sooner or later, though.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * WIKI culture is bias to the absurd on this topic. Explain to me your edits of every single thing that I have written on this page if you are such a high and noble yuck yuck at WIKI?
 * I have tried to be reasonable with you, but lets not confuse the fact that you are attacking my religious faith with maliciously false claims and promoting as OK sites about Mormonism that do have terrible things to say. If Mormonism is so bad, why should telling the truth about it be so hard? All the while you give lip service to "neutrality" but not when it works in my favor. Your problem is that your noble sentiments don't match your actions. So I will sign off and you can sneak back when I'm not looking and finish removing it all! Now there is some intellectual integrity! (Entropy's 1 13:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)) Entropy's 1 Talk


 * Sorry, I haven't been promoting any websites, let alone ones with "maliciously false claims". I haven't added any external links to that article at all. You must have me confused with someone else. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a note: I'm pretty sure the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a relationship between Planck's constant and the instantaneous position and momentum of a particle. Perhaps you meant a different principle? Adjwilley (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)