User talk:WikiWes77/Archive


 * I have tried to make it [the Joseph Smith article] more balanced, although I'm not an expert in LDS history. I try to keep references, as they are usually constructive. However, I am always suspicious of anti-mormon sources because of the intense opposition the church has always had in some form and the dishonesty I have noticed from the opposition about our history and beliefs. It ranges from simple (for example, "Mormons don't believe in the Bible") to subtle and crafty myths, like "Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre," which has been refuted by Church historians. But I'm not prepared to judge the authenticity and reliability of anti-mormon sources, because I'm not a historian, and I don't study them. I have also said that I'm firmly Mormon, but if I wasn't, I'd be agnostic, and that I believe that revelation is the key to true religion. That's my POV. I hope I don't get vandalized for it. I'll be watching. --WikiWes77 (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for the tangential response, and also forgive me for saying that some of your comments above are a little naive - I also used to think the same as you. However, you will find that the LDS church and its apologists are just as guilty of outright dishonesty regarding church history - even some of its prophets and apostles. Both sides of the debate have their extremes and their moderates. Most mormons have not even heard of a lot of the more controversial things in the church's history which are never spoken of in the church. I consider "anti-Mormon" material to be that which spreads half truths - but you should know that there is an awful lot of legitimate criticism that does not stoop to that level. A great resource is Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought in which established scholars, both Mormon and non-Mormon have waged debates for many years which have molded the educated man's thought regarding Mormon claims. A disclaimer and statement of my personal POV: I personally left the church about a year ago after being disillusioned with the church's claims and some of its half truths itself, and I get a little uppity when members of the church make blanket statements like yours where you said: "...I am always suspicious of anti-mormon sources because of the intense opposition the church has always had in some form and the dishonesty I have noticed from the opposition about our history and beliefs." If you are not a historian, and you are not willing to read critical material, how can you be sure that what you think is the truth about your religion really is the truth? Again, forgive me for the tangential response, and feel free to remove it from your talk page if you like, or respond on mine. Regards,--Descartes1979 (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen your user page, and your response is what I would expect. First, let me say that I have a firm testimony of the Book of Mormon, which I have received by a strong witness from the Spirit. My missionary companion was also a witness to the Spirit that was there. I may be casting my pearls before swine, but you, Descartes, should understand what I'm saying. I am aware of some logical arguments against the Book of Mormon. But because of my testimony, which many people may disbelieve, but no one can refute, I must conclude that there is something wrong with these arguments, on some level. If not outright false, they could be abuses of reason; taken out of context, exaggerated, built on faulty assumptions, etc. See my analysis on this issue.


 * I am also aware of things that our leaders have said that come out sounding contradictory. I have no illusions that our leaders are perfect and that every word that they have ever spoken is what God would have said. But also, as I learned in my Interpersonal Communication class, meanings are in people, not words, because words can mean different things to different people. But I know my prophets and church leaders are much closer to God than most of us, so who am I to judge?


 * And concerning history, I feel it's hard to know the reliability of sources, especially on controversial subjects, and especially with old history, where there are no eyewitnesses left. It's not so hard to prove someone's education, as evidenced by their degrees. What is hard to prove is their objectivity and honesty. Those are personal matters. So how can you vouch for the honesty and authenticity of your sources? When there are contradictions, I tend to trust the word of Church historians. They have more of an inside "scoop," and belong to a church where we believe in being honest. I'm sure it's true that they leave a few of the negative things out, but for church purposes, who can blame them? It's not very likely that they would say anything that directly contradicts true historical facts. However, speaking of negative things, Richard Turley and the Church have been very open lately about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It's something in Church history that never should have happened, if those people in Southern Utah had lived by their church's teachings.


 * In conclusion, I'm choosing to trust what I have learned through experience with the church and the gospel, especially spiritual experiences, rather than having to reason every little thing out. Us imperfect humans can't know, understand, and synthesize everything on our own. I know the Lord has communicated with me through His Spirit and helped me to know the truth. You probably recall what it says in the Bible and Book of Mormon about trusting in the Lord, not in men. I hope it's okay with you if I point out a couple of scriptures: Mosiah 23:14 I will say that I believe "men of God" are not all part of my church. By the way, I'd be curious to know whether you are now part of any church. See also: 2 Nephi 9:28-29 I don't want to be too preachy for you, but I wanted to respond to you the best that I can.


 * P.S. Having said all that, I'm not afraid to read anti-mormon material. I just don't think it would do me any good. But for Wikipedia purposes, I may decide to look into it to understand better what the critics say. --WikiWes77 (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WikiWes, you may find it interesting to first study the lives of the individual historians that are viewed as anti-Mormon as well as those who are just critics. I see a wide divide between critics and anti-Mormons and find that their reviews of the church read differently also. More importantly, in studying their lives we understand objectivity and purpose.


 * Much of what Descartes says is of value, but his position is one of putting complete faith in the arm of flesh; that man is capable of "knowing" all things in history, in science, etc. Learned men have always had a hard time having faith when they lose the ability to be open to the direction of God. Essentially his critique indicts all religion and leaves the individual alone. To some that is enough, but to most it is empty and solitary. Each is free to choose.
 * One of the problems with Anti-Mormon literature is the repetition of falsehoods without regard for verifying sources or accuracy. Another, is the ability to "recreate" history and making the assumption that all is known and complete deductions of fact can be made. Some have sought out the truth of some things, yet still turn a blind eye to others. It is interesting to observe.


 * I am a lover of history and have been for many years. LDS are not perfect and have never claimed to be such. Many critics of all kinds assume that prophets must be perfect to truly be prophets. Leaders have made errors and demonstrated they are just men. I tend not to put leaders, any leader, on a high pedestal. My first obligation is to follow the Spirit and go do where I am led. As you have said above, that is true religion. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. Studying the lives of authors and critics sounds like a good idea. As we read, "By their fruits (works) ye shall know them." And on that note, I find it interesting to compare the prophet Joseph Smith to Warren Jeffs (a false prophet). In spite of persecution, including being beaten, tarred, and feathered, he remained true to his word. This was also in spite of the unpopularity of the practice of "polygamy" and of being jailed. He never wished to die. He died for his cause.


 * In contrast, Warren Jeffs, in the face of mounting scrutiny and jail, renounced his role as leader of the FLDS church and as "prophet". He has been in jail, trying to commit suicide. --WikiWes77 (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * StormRider has made some good points above. One particular one that stands out: "One of the problems...is the ability to "recreate" history and making the assumption that all is known and complete deductions of fact can be made. Some have sought out the truth of some things, yet still turn a blind eye to others. It is interesting to observe." I completely agree with this statement. If you read anything by Jerald and Sandra Tanner you will find that they do this a lot of the time. However, that doesn't mean we can excuse everything with the caveat that "we don't know all the facts". While that may be true, and we may never know everything, I think there are some cases where if you look at the preponderance of evidence, and apply a reasonableness test you can come to a pretty solid conclusion on a lot of things. Thats why I love reading the papers in Dialogue - most of the time they are established scholars with no particular axe to grind, and they are truly searching for fact and truth.


 * All of that having been said - StormRider is once again right on the nose: my statements are indeed an indictment of all religion, and I don't consider the "Spirit" to be a source of truth, and have found that my life is much more meaningful if I let the evidence take me where it will without any preconceived notions of what is "true" and what is not. This will be a fundamental disagreement between us that I doubt we could ever get past. For example, you will see a piece of archaeological evidence and draw a parallel to the Book of Mormon, and believe that it is another small confirmation of its truthfulness. I can appreciate your perspective. I, on the other hand, will see that same piece of evidence, and since there has been no other explicit and irrefutable archaeological evidence that the Book of Mormon is true, I will be suspect of drawing such a parallel.


 * Where does that leave us? We are pitted on opposite sides of a debate that has been waged for more than 150 years. Hopefully we can both respect each other and as far as the Wikipedia is concerned, not let our POV get too much in the way of our presentation of facts. (By the way, if you see me make too blatant of a POV edit, please call me out on it - I may disagree with you, but it will be a healthy exercise).


 * As far as the scriptures you quote are concerned, you probably understand that since I consider the Book of Mormon to be a creation of Joseph Smith, that any rhetoric therin isn't persuasive to me at all. Also just want to make sure it is clear that I also have had many "spiritual" experiences, so I know exactly what you are talking about - and I haven't forgotten what they feel like. I just don't consider these experiences to really be from a supernatural being.
 * Cheers --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you dismiss revelation and any kind of spirituality, there is a fundamental difference between us. But I think it's evident that yes, we can still respect each other. We will work toward NPOV from our respective ends. I know there are also neutrals, like I think A Sniper is. As a side note, I have found the Wikipedia community to be more civil and much more constructive than comment boards, like the one on KSL.com that I used to be involved with. --WikiWes77 (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)