User talk:Thewayandthelight

Celestial Kingdom
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Val42 03:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Hi! You have directly copied significant material from irr.org into several Mormon-related articles. Please do not do this; it is a violation of copyright. Your contributions are also not neutral; please read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Factual, well-cited, and balanced contributions are welcome here; I encourage you not to use Wikipedia as a soapbox but rather contribute such material as you might expect to see in a comprehensive yet objective encyclopedia. You might profitably spend some time reading through Wikipedia's core policies to see how to do this. Thanks, alanyst /talk/ 22:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The things you say
Storm Rider - I can tell that you are very passionate about your religion. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the fact that you are suppressing contrasting facts and opinions. I object that you feel justified in suppressing the rights of every United States citizen to speak his/her own mind as long as it does not hurt others. I believe Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, the former USSR and China all had a similar means of suppressing contrasting opinions of their ideas as well. You say removing your information is vandalism. What crime are you committing by presenting information as fact when you have no ability to present it as factual? I do know is that the LDS religion has excommunicated thousands of its own members for discovering the facts that I present. You are a hypocrite. There are many verifiable facts about the LDS religion and its shady creation. I will continue to put this kind of information on Wikipedia in an effort to provide information to the average individual seeking more than supposition and lies. Jospeh Smith was simply a man. A very smart man. A man that possessed the ability to take advantage of the desire of average people to believe in a greater power than themselves but still a man. He may have believed very deeply in the religion he created but there was nothing devine about his life. He was killed by an angry mob that would not allow him subvert their lives. The LDS church is one of the richest organizations in the world. Why? Why do they own large businesses and massive amounts of property? Where in the Book of Mormon does it talk about buying Coca Cola, Marroitt hotels, and shopping malls? They even managed to purchase Main Street in downtown Salt Lake City. What does that have to do with religion? The only verifiable facts about the mormons centers around their desire to acquire money and power. You can call me a liar. You can erase my posts. You can attempt to suppress reality but you will never be able to demonstrate that the LDS religion is based on anything but its ability to acquire money and power. You continue to offer information in these pages that perpetuates the absolute fantasy world (sorry...three worlds) that you wish to believe in. I will be presenting the facts that prove that Jospeh Smith was a fraud and that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction - not a historical document. There will come a time when the reality of Jospeh Smith’s fraud will be shown for what it is. I am confident of that. I will continue to repost this information on Wikipedia as to show people exactly how you represent your religion. Thewayandthelight 21:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose I am a hypocrite if what you mean is that I often fall short of the beliefs I hold. No matter how much I try I fail at being a disciple of Jesus Christ. However, I will also say that I rejoice in Christ because I know through Him I am forgiven of my shortcomings and sins.
 * Now just so we understand one another; you seem to be deluded. At no point in any publication by the LDS church is Joseph Smith presented as anything but a simple man. A prophet yes, but a man always. Why on earth would you think differently? It makes me think that you have a rather limited understanding of the LDS faith and probably should limit your edits solely to those areas where you have expertise.
 * Rich churches; this one always makes me laugh. This is a church that was almost bankrupt prior to the Great Depression and had but a handful of members. How did it become wealthy? Through the tithes and offerings of its members. Why did the church buy farms and other things? To provide for the welfare of those who needed welfare. Members and many nonmembers did not go to the government for a handout, they went to the LDS church. This is the same thing that every other church could have done, but did not. Tithes and offerings come at a sacrifice and the LDS members obviously have proven they are willing to sacrifice more for their church than many. This does not mean that members of other church do not tithe or provide offerings, but on the whole on a per capita basis they fall short.
 * I don't need to call you a liar and have no need to do so. Deluded and on a soap box, yes. Liar? No, because you are incapable of lying in this area. You don't have enough knowledge to lie about it.
 * Please present from reputable sources all that you want on Wikipedia. There are many countless editors far more skilled than you already assist in writing these articles. What you know how to do is parrot anti-Mormon sites and those have all too often demonstrated that they can not tell the whole truth to save their lives. Regardless, have at it and good luck editing. I look forward to seeing a much more improved level of editing out of you. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please storm rider. I beg you to point what is not factual about what I wrote. You believe that your beliefs give you ultimate authority to suppress the information that I have. I'm sorry to say that people with that kind of opinion are a dime a dozen and never bother to back up their behavior. Your support for the mormon agenda is not acceptable and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from interacting with the work that I am doing. Thewayandthelight 21:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack
Well now, haven't we been busy. First, this is a warning. Do not add the names of editors to articles; articles are used for information. What you are doing is a equivalent of a personal attack which is prohibited by policy. If you persist, you will be blocked.

Second, Your rather poorly worded edits have been reverted by several editors. I enourage you to use the discussion page to disucuss your proposed edits. Not only will you learn how best to assist in the editing of articles, but you will also come closer to being a contributing editor in a positive manner. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Moving conversation to this page to keep the thread constant; it demonstrates needed continuity for this enlightening conversation


 * Mr. Storm Rider,


 * You are a very interesting individual. I find it entertaining that you have a policy to point out every time someone disagrees with you.  It does not surprise me that I do not see my comments from before on your talk page.  More suppression?  Your hypocrisy knows no bounds apparently.  I do not apologize for pointing out the fact that you continuously suppress factual information on pages that you protect as your own.  You noted that I have requested NPOV violation reviews on the pages that I feel don't have pertinent non-LDS information available.  The only thing that I am guilty of is believing that you are here only to proselytize your religion as you are taught by the LDS church.  If you can not accept viable, pertinent information that happens to be against the teaching of the LDS religion, then you have no business here.  Acceptance of others information is the mainstay of this site.  Please respect my information as much as you want yours respected.  Please also be aware that it is my opinion that you are attempting to exercise unrighteous dominion over others on this site by trying to use the framework of policies to bully people off articles. You may not feel you are doing this or intending to, but, to me, it feels that way. (Thank you Mr. Mayner) I would strongly suggest that if you feel so strongly about my supposed personal attacks that you request arbitration of this matter as I feel that I was completely justified in my statement.


 * As I feel that you are committing the ultimate policy violation (Suppression of factual information to further ones personal agenda), I reqeust that you stop removing my factual inputs. I have asked you twice now.  I will request arbitration if it happens again.  If you feel so strongly about the information I have uploaded, I suggest that you have someone that is not biased on the subject review it.


 * Just Storm Rider will do; although I suspect by your youthful ignorance that I am your senior by many years. Interesting person; well I suppose some might say such a thing, but they would be rather easily amused individuals. Entertaining? If I can provide you a degree of entertainment than I will have least brought a smile to someone however cynical it a may be.
 * Whether you apologize for something is purely a personal issue. As for me, I could not care any less. You have demonstrated a rather amazing lack of knowledge and understanding of a subject you insist on editing. You will be reverted for each edit you make until you begin to gain an expertise and understand the meaning of neutrality. You might also want to think about the meaning of collaborative editing; after all it is what successful editors do here on Wikipedia.
 * I am somewhat surprised that you seek to talk to me about the many reverts you have incurred; the majority of them have been by other editors. All editors are initially given a degree of respect simply for demonstrating an effort to contribute. However, that respect is quickly strengthened or lost depending upon the quality of their edits. It is obvious where your respect from other editors is at the moment and I encourage you to think about what your role is in losing so much respect.
 * You are unworthy at the moment of any degree of arbitration; your edits are too blatantly unacceptable for any article. You might want to consider a blog where you can vent your sour feelings and misconstrue history to your heart's content and not one person will revert anything you might say.
 * Last, but not least, I moved your last edit to your own page to maintain context for your ramblings. Unless you have something constructive to say I would suggest not editing anyone's page. And if you want arbitration and are confused about how to go about it, just go to the help page and ask someone. I would welcome any of Wikipedia’s many arbitrators into this little episode of the absurd.


 * Also, to sign your edits, just type four tildes "~" in a row and it will sign and date your edit automatically. Cheers and happy editing. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that because I am fracturing the foundation that you have built your belief system around, it must be very difficult to imagine that there is another individual that came up with the idea of the three kingdoms of heaven. Unfortunately, it is a fact and this is the issue that we are attempting to deal with. You are just too tie up in your religion to be objective on this subject. In an attempt to give you what you are fishing for, here it is. Im 34 years old. I have two degrees in Electical Engineering and Computer Science. My background is in medical lasers and I own my own my business. Does this qualify me to edit and contribute? My answer would be that it qualifies as much as the next person. I don't think that anyone should be attempting to determine qualifications. I am simply offering contrasting information that lends perspective to anyone wishing to investigate the subject. Storm Rider, its nice to see that you are attempting to shut me down with passion and not logic and history. It's sad though that you would deny others the ability to speak out in order to defend your religion. Your religion should stand on its own if it can.

This is the question that we should be answering. Did Emanuel Swedenborg write about this subject in 1758? Is that the primary reason for this subject's existance? You see yourself as being above me. You've stated that very clearly. If you are truly neutral and do not have an agenda then I would appreciate it if you would read Mr. Swendenborg's book and then assist the group with its incorperation into Wikipedia. You speak of respect but the only people that you respect are the people that support your beliefs and desires. I don't believe that Joseph Smith had any divinity about his life nor do I believe that Emanuel Swedenborg did. I would never try to attain your respect because I do not desire that my life be dictated by a man that claims to have talked to God without any proof to support it.

That fact of the matter is that we do at least have one comment belief. I, too, believe that all knowledge will be learned at some point. At that point, we should discuss this subject more. Until then, let's talk about what we know now and not what your beliefs are. Thewayandthelight 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of one LDS that believes or thinks that Joseph Smith was divine, yet you keep making the allegation. He was a man from top to bottom. You propose that Swedenborg had an impact on Joseph Smith and his scriptural understanding, yet there is no evidence that he was ever exposed to any influence of Swedenborg.  That there may be commonalities may be true, but to assert that there was a direct causation is another thing.  Trying to assert that Swedenborg "created" the concept of multiple heavens is also a stretch; that concept is biblical and is present in many other religions whose existence vastly predates Mr. Swedenborg.
 * It would be best for you not to assume anything about another individual's faith and the foundation upon which it is built. None of us are in a position to know those things; especially from edits on Wikipedia. --Storm Rider (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So let's say it this way then. Swedenborg wrote a book that discusses the concept of the three kingdoms in most detail to date at that time. About 80 years later, Joseph smith did the same thing with an amount of detail that is strikingly similiar to Swedenborg's book. As far as who created the concept, Mormonism is the only modern day religion that believes in the concept of the three kingdoms. The Bible never specifically talks about the three kingdoms. The concept was created by interpretation of a couple of lines of the Bible.

Now, Storm Rider, can you answer a direct question on this matter? Do you think that Swedenborg should be included in the articles that discuss the three kingdoms concept? Why or why not? Thewayandthelight 18:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Direct answer: I have never heard any scholar ever allude that Joseph Smith was influenced by Swedenborg or his writings. The subject may be appropriate for an article on comparative religion or one that delves into the religious views of heaven in Christianity or religion at large. Anything more is original reserach and has no place. The problem is that you see similarities and then make a conclusion without any facts in evidence. Based upon your premise, in all articles on Christiantiy there should be discussion about Zoroatrianism because of its similarities. Similarities do not equal relationship, they represent similarities. Again, the concept of mulitples heavens has existed for thousands of years. Neither Swedenborg or Smith discussed or explained a unique principal. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome and a warning
Hello User:Thewayandthelight, and welcome to Wikipedia. I see you are a relatively new editor. I've reviewed your short editing history and would like you to know that most of your edits are condsidered Vandalism or in violation of other a number of policies and guidelines including: WP:NPA, WP:Civility, WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT.

While we want more editors on Wikipedia, article vandalism and the above violations cannot be tolerated and continued editing in this vein will result in you being blocked from editing from an administrator such as myself. As you are a new user, I'm going to Assume good faith and guess that you are not familiar with Wikipedia policies and editing style.

To help you become familiar with the Wikipedia way, below are some links that I found helpful:
 * Introduction to Wikipedia and Editing
 * A tutorial on editing
 * Wikipedia's Manual of Style
 * How to write a great article
 * Policies and Guidelines

In addition, I would encourage you to read WP:POV and look to write in encyclopedia tone in your entries, and fill out your user page so that the rest of us can get to know you and a little about your background so we can work with you better. Also, we don't put usernames in articles, but can uses them on discussion and talk pages. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. -Visorstuff 13:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk
Hi, Thewayandthelight. I'm glad you're willing to talk. I'm happy to hear your thoughts in response to mine. I do wonder though: Have you taken the time yet to read through the Wikipedia policies that several editors, including me, have linked to on this page? (In particular, I refer to neutral point of view, copyright, assuming good faith, what Wikipedia is not, civility, and verifiability.) If you have, I wonder if you could just briefly summarize what you think they mean, so I can see how your interpretation of the policies match up with mine. I think that would be a helpful way to establish a foundation for further discussion. Thanks! alanyst /talk/ 20:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so you don't think I'm ignoring you, I'm planning on continuing the conversation we've been having, but don't have the time right this moment. Here's a quick tip in the meantime, though: you can (and should) sign the comments you leave on talk pages (but not article edits you make). It's easy to do: just type four tildes ( ~ ) and they'll be turned into a date-stamped signature when you save your changes. alanyst /talk/ 21:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey!!! it works. :D Thewayandthelight 21:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the delay in responding properly. From what I can tell, the bare facts of the matter are that you made edits to a number of LDS-related articles, and those edits were reverted by various editors, myself included. Now, there are two main ways of viewing these facts: one, that your edits were consistent with Wikipedia policy and the editors who reverted them were not justified in doing so; two, that your edits were not consistent with Wikipedia policy and the other editors were justified in reverting them. This is why I asked you about your understanding of Wikipedia policy -- you are relatively new here, and despite your confidence that your edits were appropriate, my view of them was that they violated several policies and guidelines. (It's natural for newcomers to take some time learning the ropes, so it doesn't imply any malice on your part.) Since the heart of the conflict seems to be how you and I regard your edits in light of WP policy, it seems best to isolate the points of policy where our understanding differs, in hopes that we can establish areas of common ground from which we can work out other differences (or at least agree about what we irreconcilably disagree). It would be helpful, though, to know that you've indeed read the pertinent policies, so that we can speak with the same lingo and refer to the same general ideas. Have you done this? Thanks, alanyst /talk/ 06:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Alanyst,

The policies and procedures are very clear to me is so much so that I feel that one could use these policies to support an agenda. You yourself have been accused of it. Kudos to you for leaving critisisms of you available for others to view. Were my edit appropriate? I don't know and I really don't care. Is the information that I am attempting to add factual, relivant and appropriate for this subject? Absolutely. Instead of simply deleting the information, why was there no effort to refine and incorperate it? Please! Instruct me. Show me exactly how this information should be included. I welcome the experience of the collective to guide this process. Thewayandthelight 21:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)