Jump to content

User talk:TheOtter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject

[edit]

Hello TheOtter, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your recent edit to an article that is part of the Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject. We welcome your contributions and hope that you will stay and contribute more. Here are some links that I found helpful:

If you run into a dispute, please use the Talk pages and the Latter Day Saint movement project talk page to discuss subjects (especially controversial ones) to help reach consensus. But don't be afraid to be bold!! Also, as new Mormonism-related articles are created, please make sure to add them to List of articles about Mormonism.

Remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my Talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- meco 08:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits, please review the Manual of Style

[edit]

I recently reverted a bunch of your edits on several articles. I think you should review the LDS Manual of Style - it specifically states that terms like "The Church of Jesus Christ" and "The Church" (capitalized) should be avoided in most circumstances because they create confusion. Thanks, --Descartes1979 (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as you’re inviting me to “be bold”…. ;-)
The Church has specifically requested that those terms be used (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=ca07ae4af9c7e010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD), and the scriptures specifically state what the Church is to be called (see D.&C. 115:4, http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/115/4. Note that the Lord does not command “Thus shall my church be named, but “Thus shall my church be called”. This is a rather important distinction.
I can certainly see why these terms might be confusing in an article in which multiple churches are discussed, but if all we’re talking about is the Church of Jesus Christ, I’m really not sure why we can’t respect both the Church’s and the Savior’s wishes. TheOtter (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)TheOtter[reply]

Hi, I did the same on David W. Patten and some others. It would be helpful if you reviewed the manual mentioned above. Note that the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" wasn't even so-named until 1838, so Patten didn't have anything to do with the church by that name in 1832. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I’m not sure what this last one means. You’re right that the Church didn’t have that name until 1838, which is exactly why I changed it to “the Church of Christ.” It sounds like you agree with me, so I’m not sure why you changed it back? TheOtter (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, I am sorry. I totally was confused and thought you had done the reverse. I apologise. That's a sign that I am tired and need to turn in. I will change it back. Sorry for the inconvenience (and my stupidity here). Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. Certainly not like I’ve never made any mistakes. ;-) TheOtter (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you fully understand the problem...

[edit]

I don't think you appreciate the full scope of the problem here. There have been lots of discussions on the best way to go about this problem and how to avoid confusion, which is why the Manual of Style was created. All articles dealing with Mormonism (hundreds, maybe even thousands) follow this standard. If you have a problem with the standard, you should take it up on the talk page of the Manual of Style, where your proposals will be discussed and evaluated. Check out the article on The Church of Jesus Christ - notice how there are over twenty churches including fully 18 that are from the Latter Day Saint movement. All of them believe that they rightfully should be called "The Church of Jesus Christ". Hence - the Manual of Style to help us all avoid confusion.

List of Churches that believe they should be called "The Church of Jesus Christ":

--Descartes1979 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Considering that the plan would only involve changes after the first reference, I think this is more workable than some suggest. The plan would involve having the first reference in the article use The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and later references use "The Church of Jesus Christ" or "The Church". I would even generally oppose such on long articles like Thomas S. Monson where people might just read a bit, but I think it should be workable on a short article like Edward Dube. If the article only ever mentions one church, I really do not think this would create confusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

There is a proposed merge that I think would interest you at Talk:Limited geography model#Several merge proposals - my take. I am posting this notice because I saw that you were a recent editor at one of the pages listed below:

--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Abraham edits

[edit]

Hey there - no offense, but your recent edits at Book of Abraham demonstrate an unfamiliarity with the papyri which were discovered. They did NOT only have facsimiles/images in them - they are replete with text which was analyzed and does not match the the purported translation by Joseph Smith. Take a look at Joseph Smith papyri and you will see images of nearly every fragment if you are interested. --75.166.23.220 (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==

With all due respect, your response demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the Book of Abraham. The book explicitly states that the now-extant papyri are not the source of the book of Abraham, but rather illustrations included to better explain the text (see Abraham 1:12). Neither the extant papyri nor the source scrolls are the original source of the Book of Abraham; they date to about 200 B.C.—long after Abraham’s death—and, like many other Jewish redactions around the time of Christ, contain reworkings of popular Pagan illustrations to better describe the attached Christian works.

I am well aware that there is text on the papyri; it’s just not pertinent to the article. Thanks! TheOtter (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, I am very familiar with the topic. I have read the Book of Abraham several times cover to cover and know the facsimiles like the back of my hand, and I have read hundreds of articles and books on the subject, including the translations of the extant papyri by all of the leading Egyptologists when they came out in the 70s. You seem to not be familiar with the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, in which Joseph Smith created a character by character translation of the papyri - which matches the extant papyri characters exactly. Even Mormon apologists admit that the papyri were at least part of the larger set of papyri used by Joseph Smith. Your argument is a regurgitation of a very extreme view taken by BYU Mormon apologists - and is rejected outright by every single mainstream Egyptologist who has reviewed this topic. Anyway - all of this is neither here nor there - I suspect we will never agree because of your religious beliefs. I just wanted to touch bases with you because of a couple of your edits which were reverted by another editor - in case you were wondering why. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==

Descartes, two points: first, reading a book doesn’t qualify us as an expert on that book. I genuinely appreciate that you have read the translated portion of the Book of Abraham (as have I), but that doesn’t change the fact that you seem to have either missed the sentence that impacts this discussion, or you are purposely ignoring it. The text of the Book of Abraham explicitly describes at least Facsimile 1's source document as a "representation" of the record, not the record itself. This is the point I was making in the above paragraph.

Secondly, I am likewise extremely aware of Joseph’s attempt to learn Egyptian from the KEP. I have two friends that regularly engage in backwards translation as a means of learning new languages; it's a very effective method, at least as far as the written language is concerned. What I don't understand is why you feel this attempt to decipher the language from which the translation was made is relevant to the translation process itself.

Thanks again. TheOtter (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Post-election events of Proposition 8 (2008). Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Trafford09 (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

[edit]
Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed.
Lionel (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Original research

[edit]

I'm not sure if you've read our policy at WP:NOR. In general, when you use a source it needs to specifically discuss the subject, so a source used for Smith's prophecies needs to dicuss that prophecy. For that reasonn I've reverted a couple of your edits. If you disagree, please take it to the article talk page to be sorted rather than just reinstate it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecies

[edit]

Your last edit there was the key one. The first wording would have required another source commenting on the letter. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

[edit]

Don't do this or this. The former is vandalism, the latter is not acceptable. Dave Dial (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already been warned about your edit at Massachusetts 1913 law. That's what I came here to do, so I shall simply say that any more like that and you are likely to be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your later edits are no better. We don't use Scare quotes - see WP:BADEMPHASIS and if no one has told you about no personal attacks and to assume good faith, please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dougweller, I apologize that you dislike my use of scare quotes, but as the very article you linked to states, “If scare quotes are enclosing a word or phrase that does not represent a quotation from another source they may simply serve to alert the reader that the word or phrase is used in an unusual, special, or non-standard way or should be understood to include caveats to the conventional meaning.” I understand that scare quotes can be used inappropriately (hence the name), but I would think the foregoing would be a legitimate use, would it not?
Secondly, I hope you’re not implying that I engaged in personal attacks; if I did, I sincerely apologize, but I’d appreciate knowing when and how I did so, that I might avoid doing so in the future. As far as I can see, all I’ve done is edit a couple of pages in an effort to replace Orwellian Newspeak with standard, non-politicized terminology, and some people seem to have a problem with that. I’m really not sure how, if this is supposed to be a neutral resource, said reverting to Newspeak could even make sense.
Finally, I couldn’t help but notice the What is considered to be a personal attack section of the NPA page, which specifically states that threats are unacceptable. As such, I’d appreciate it if you’d stop.
Peace. TheOtter (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

[edit]

Sorry I’m not following you, but I’m honestly not sure what problem you have with my edits. The first change—the one you called “vandalism”—was the removal of politically-tinged Orwellian newspeak in favor of standard, neutral, accurate terminology. The second clarified that the group in question—a hate group on the level of the nuts at Westboro—only promotes tolerance of those who agree with its narrow, discriminatory interpretation of law. Unless you’re trying to use Wikipedia as your own personal political soapbox (which I believe is against the rules), the edits I made are not only appropriate but necessary. TheOtter (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're claiming that "garriage" a word invented in 2007 is standard, neutral terminology? (I see someone else - clearly anti-homosexual - claims to have invented it more recently[1]. Garriage is newspeak. "Gay marriage" is standard usage. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, I don’t claim to know when the word “garriage” was invented, but I’m not sure you understand the concept of Orwellian newspeak. In any event, the word “garriage” certainly does not qualify; the term “gay marriage,” however, does. TheOtter (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard, generally seen as neutral term is "same-sex marriage". That is an upfront description of what is involved, without getting into tricky issues of how we refer to people who are generally thought to be the main participants. I use this wording deliberately because there is nothing that prevents people who are not in their own view homosexuals from participating in same-sex marriage, some have actually hypothesized that such might become common under certain circumstances, and since there is no neccesity to affirm sexual attraction to a potential spouse, there is no legal limit that makes the institution only open to people who identify as homosexuals.

First Vision edit

[edit]

Thnakyou for editing the article on the First Vision to identify the background of Peter Buader to give more context to the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Divinization (Christian) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • light and truth" ([http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93.36?lang=eng#35 D&C 93:36])), therefore the process of inheriting His glory is a process of learning. As a crucial step in this

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and follow MOS:LDS

[edit]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doug. I was not aware of that page. However, I do think it a bit too permissive. Including the adjective or improper noun "Mormon" in direct quotes is obviously appropriate, as is the use of the nickname "LDS Church"; but more general use of those slurs is inappropriate. It’s akin to calling people of African descent "Niggers", or speaking of the "Yids" killed in the Holocaust. (Indeed, it’s probably more like the latter, since at least "Niggers" were considered valuable; the slur "Mormons" was used to justify a law requiring anyone who came in contact with a Latter-day Saint to kill him or her.) TheOtter (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and follow MOS:LDS

[edit]

I see no evidence that you've attempted to gain consensus for your changes either there or at Talk:Mormon. Please gain a consensus before rewriting the lead. Acroterion (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten that that page existed. Thank you for your assistance. TheOtter (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American politics discretionary sanctions notice

[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. CUPIDICAE💕 02:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

[edit]

Hi, I have mentioned you at WP:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Ethnic slurs. ~Awilley (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Awilley. I sincerely do appreciate it. Anything we can do to further this topic of conversation is extremely helpful. TheOtter (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't thank me before you read the thread. It's archived now, but you can still can (and should) read it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1059#Ethnic_slurs ~Awilley (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


You do have to follow consensus here. In modern English, the term Mormon is not an actionable slur. If you continue to act as if it is, and make inflammatory comments on that basis, you will be blocked; this may be your only warning. All things shall be done by common consent. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
power~enwiki, I appreciate what you're saying as well. But at the risk of seeming disingenuous (which I assure you I am not), I do wonder what I've said that be "inflammatory". All I have done is equate one slur, which was used to justify enslaving people, with another slur, which was used to justify murdering people (and in one case, even requiring their death). If you want to say the opposite--that "Nigger" isn't as bad as "Mormon" because enslavement isn't as bad as genocide--I could maybe get behind that, but that's really not my position. I'm merely saying that both are inappropriate.
Honestly, I think you've inadvertently revealed the real issue here with your use of the word "actionable": why is Niggers actionable but Mormons not? Is it just because the campaign to eradicate the former term has thus far been more successful than the campaign to eradicate the latter? I honestly have no problem with having Wikipedia pages about "Mormons", so long as they explain the nature of the term (just like the pages about "Niggers"). I just get the feeling that in this particular case, "consensus" is turning into "mob rule", (i.e. "I don't think that term is offensive, so I'm going to keep using it even if it hurts people that do"). The Book of Mormon itself states that calling Christians "Mormons" is tantamount to calling us "Satanists". If it's that important to the people affected by it, why would any decent person feel it appropriate to ignore? TheOtter (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'm an admin here, and saw the thread about you at WP:ANI. I assume you're finished using ethnic slurs in order to make your point about the terminology used by people about your church? Which, I guess, is a passive-aggressive way of saying "you need to stop using ethnic slurs in order to make your point about the terminology used by people about your church". I understand what you're trying to say, I understand you might think there is an exception made for lingusitic intent, or you might be trying to emphasize how hurt you are by the word. But at this point, shocking/offending other people - many of whom have not referred to your church, ever - in order to demonstrate that you yourself are offended is no longer an option. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your position, Floquenbeam, and unless I'm misunderstanding, I agree with its crux 100%: slurs are absolutely unacceptable. (To avoid unnecessary repetition, I will refer you to my comments both above and below this one.) I am, however, concerned by your specific charge. I know it's sometimes hard to tell--especially in print--but I want to emphasize that I am in no way trying to "shock" or "offend" people. And in case you be concerned, I also want to say that I'm not trying to be argumentative nor disingenuous. I'm just trying to explain the gravity of this situation in terms that others can understand, and it distresses me that so many people don't seem to be getting it.
To this end, I'll pose the same question to you as I posed above: why would any decent person feel that one slur be unacceptable, but another not? That's the aspect of this whole thing that I just don't get. I know I said this above, but the Book of Mormon itself states that calling Christians "Mormons" is tantamount to calling us "Satanists". If it's that important to the victims of the term, why would any decent person feel it appropriate to use? TheOtter (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheOtter, you claim "the Book of Mormon itself states that calling Christians 'Mormons' is tantamount to calling us 'Satanists'." I've never heard anything like that. Could you please provide the relevant quote from the book that says that, or reference the chapter and verse so I can look it up myself? ~Awilley (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being Called in His Name

[edit]

Thanks for asking, Awilley. I've blocked this off because it's going to be a little long, and I want to make sure anyone who follows us will be able to figure out what's going on. The fact of the matter is that it's not as straightforward as a single passage saying "calling Christians 'Mormons' is calling them 'Satanists'; but when one puts two and two together, it's pretty hard to miss. In the First Book of Nephi, the prophet Nephi ben Lehi recorded a vision in which an angel instructed him on various Christian doctrines and principles. Part of this is a discussion of what Christ Himself would later call the "strait" and the "broad" path:

And he [the angel] said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.

And... I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw. (1 Nephi 14:10-12)

If you'd like to read more passages that clarify these points further, please feel free to check out the [relevant entry] in the Church's [Topical Guide to the Scriptures]. However, I believe these passages will suffice for our purposes. Put simply: anyone who's not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ is a member of the Church of the Devil. I know this sounds harsh and perhaps even offensive, so if you happen to care, there's a [great discussion] at [Book of Mormon Central]; but the point is that that's the doctrine. So, let's continue. Some 600 years later, another prophet (coincidentally also named Nephi) recorded a visit of the Savior to the people in his land. Near the conclusion of His teachings, He instructed the disciples called to preside over the local church, including the following:

And it came to pass that... the disciples were gathered together and were united in mighty prayer and fasting. And Jesus again showed himself unto them... and said unto them: What will ye that I shall give unto you?

And they said unto him: Lord, we will that thou wouldst tell us the name whereby we shall call this church; for there are disputations among the people concerning this matter.

And the Lord said unto them: Verily, verily, I say unto you, why is it that the people should murmur and dispute because of this thing? Have they not read the scriptures, which say ye must take upon you the name of Christ, which is my name? For by this name shall ye be called at the last day;... And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called... in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel. (3 Nephi 27:1-8)

Again, pretty simple: Christ's disciples and Church must be called by His name. Being called by His name does not automatically make a disciple or church His--obviously it must be based on His doctrine--but being called by someone else's name (in this case, Mormon's) does automatically make that disciple or church not His. So, let's amalgamate the points here:

  • The Saints of God are the members of Christ's Church (1 Nephi 14:12).
  • Those who are members of Christ's Church are must be called in His name (1 Nephi 27:5; cf. Mosiah 5:8-10).
  • A church called in someone's name is that person's church, and thus not Christ's (3 Nephi 27:8).
  • The only church besides Christ's is Satan's (1 Nephi 14:10).
  • Anyone who doesn't belong to Christ's Church belongs to Satan's church (1 Nephi 14:10).

Taking these points together: if we call the Church of Jesus Christ the "Mormon Church" (or any other name that doesn't attribute it to the Savior), we are calling it "not Christ's Church", i.e. "Satan's church"; and by extension, if we call a person a "Mormon" (or any other name that doesn't attribute that person to the Savior), we are calling that person "not Christ's", i.e. "Satan's".

Make sense?

Only if I squint really hard and try to turn off the rational part of my brain. Let me ask you a question: Around 1850, Brigham Young instituted the ban on black men holding the priesthood and was preaching obviously racist and discriminatory doctrines against black people. At the same time, Hariet Tubman, an escaped slave herself, was risking her life working the underground railroad to free other slaves. Given the Book of Mormon's mandate to "succor those that stand in need of your succor" and "administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need", which of these two was doing the Lord's work? The wealthiest man in Utah living in the mansion with dozens of wives, or the woman who dedicated her life to serving the most vulnerable and oppressed people in the country? Are you honestly willing to label people like Hariet Tubman and Mother Teresa as belonging to the "church of the devil" because they didn't call themselves "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"? ~Awilley (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Awilley. While this is definitely off topic, I think you've misunderstood a few historical facts. To wit:
  • Neither Brigham Young nor any other Latter-day Saint ever instituted a comprehensive "ban on black men holding the priesthood", as you imply. What actually happened is that, like in most of recorded history, certain people--in this case, the members of one specific family--were restricted from holding certain Priesthood offices (but not the Priesthood itself). Yes, there was a large overlap between Americans affected by this restriction and Americans with dark skin, but that was fairly coincidental. Though rare in the USA, many light-skinned people throughout the world were also among those restricted; and conversely, many dark-skinned people were not. (And of course, outside of the United States, there were plenty of so-called "black" men who held the Priesthood offices in question.)

  • I'm actually not aware of Brigham Young ever preaching against so-called "black people" (to use your term). There is no question that President Young was racist--after all, he did live in 19th-century America--but I'd be interested to know when he supposedly preached against "black people" per se.

    Now, don't get me wrong: there is plenty of evidence of President Young making racist and discriminatory comments regarding Negroes, generally in conjunction with the aforementioned restriction on Priesthood offices. He even made the occasional recorded statement regarding Negroes' physical characteristics that, while considered scientific fact at the time, are likely inaccurate and consequently hurtful (particularly when viewed through the fallacious lens of presentism). But again, I'd be very interested to see an example of him "preaching obviously racist and discriminatory doctrines against black people". If you have any examples, please do share.

  • I agree that Brigham Young was indeed "the wealthiest man in Utah", though this was arguably because, like Joseph Smith before him, the Church never felt the need to demarcate his personal property from its own. (Joseph Smith also lived in a mansion, but as he opened it to every homeless and/or needy person in town, that's really not saying much.)

    Despite this, Brigham actually never lived anywhere with dozens of wives. In fact, very few of his wives ever lived with him at all, and the majority were apparently never even intimate with him. I actually can't find the source right now, but I've read that as President of the Church, Brigham felt it his responsibility to never decline a marriage proposal; and thus was, in his own words, married to quite a few women whom he wouldn't know if he saw them on the street. (He also said that he regarded several of his wives more as mothers than wives, and that these marriages were basically just him supporting them financially.)

Of course, none of these points have anything to do with your question, which was: "Are you honestly willing to label people like Hariet Tubman and Mother Teresa as belonging to the 'church of the devil' because they didn't call themselves 'members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'?" And the answer to that is: absolutely. There are billions of people throughout both history and the present day who are great and righteous people, and many of them--including both Harriet Tubman and Mother Teresa--were probably much better than the great majority of Latter-day Saints. (I'm almost certain they’re better than I!) But just like being extremely intelligent does not automatically make someone a college graduate, being extremely righteous does not automatically make one a member of Christ's Church. TheOtter (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...but not being a member of Christ's Church automatically makes one a member of the Church of Satan. Seems a bit lopsided to me. ~Awilley (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. If Jesus of Nazareth is who the Christian scriptures say he is, I'm not sure how anyone could logically argue otherwise; and if He isn't, then the same logic still applies, only with whatever is true vs. everything else. I would refer you again to the aformentioned article], which explains it much better than I.
That being said, you are more than welcome to believe or disbelieve this dichotomy; neither I nor the Church of Jesus Christ would ever deny you that right (cf. the 11th Article of Faith). But with all due respect, this discussion isn't about your beliefs; it's about Latter-day Saints' beliefs, and why calling us by the "M-word" is (and arguably should be) offensive. If Wikipedia allows other groups to dictate which terms be appropriate or otherwise, why wouldn't we grant Christians the same privilege? TheOtter (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

m-word

[edit]

I want to call people what they want to be called, but as recently as 2014 we have Meet the M*****. With apologies, I sincerely am asking this, how is the m-word in 2021 as offensive as the n-word when in 2014 the church was producing a movie under that title? It's fine if the church has decided they don't like that word any more, but to state that it's a slur that has no place in civilized society. It frankly amazes me that anyone would think such charged language be appropriate for a supposedly neutral encyclopedia only a few years after the church encouraged people outside the church to use that term feels like a little much. I feel like you kind of have to give the world a chance to catch up. —valereee (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great question, valereee. I would refer you to Wikipedia's own Use of nigger in the arts. The Church has long used the exonym "Mormons" in the same way that people of African descent once used the exonym "Niggers": to help people understand who is being referenced before redirecting them to an appropriate (and arguably more accurate) term. So, let's follow the analogy: if someone were doing an online search for "Niggers", how many of the results do you think would be positive in nature? I suspect not many, since the people still using that term are unlikely to do so complimentarily. But what if the Internet had existed 100 years ago? I suspect the results would be very different: most people were only just beginning to see the term as a slur, so I'm sure there would be many more positive uses of the term.
So, let's switch to the term that's really in question here. Almost two centuries ago, the term "Mormons" (which the Book of Mormon itself calls a slur) supplanted the endonyms "Christians" and "Latter-day Saints" in most areas of society. The Church quickly recognized that this was not a good thing, and it repeatedly tried to stop the trend. Unfortunately, no matter which media it used to spread that message, it was never able to cull the tide. So, we fast-forward to 2011. When The Book of Mormon musical hit Broadway, the Book of Mormon and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were unsurprisingly thrust back into the spotlight. At the same time, Governor (now Senator) Mitt Romney, a well-known Latter-day Saint, was running for President of the United States. Millions of people suddenly wanted to know more about "Mormons", so the Church began yet another major marketing campaign--this time, with the power of SEO. The Church already knew that online searches for "Mormons" invariably brought up critical results, so they stepped up their efforts to take ownership of the term. In short, when people searched for "Mormon", we wanted them to find positive and, hopefully, accurate information before negative sites full of incomplete and, often, inaccurate information. Meet the Mormons was an example of this; the web site Mormon.org (which now redirects to ComeUntoChrist.org) was another.
I guess my intended point is simple: once upon a time, darker-skinned people made a concerted effort to convert people from the exonymic slur "Nigger" to more appropriate terms (assuming, of course, that any such term be appropriate; I would argue that it is not). But in order to change the term that people actually used, those initiating change first had to "own" the term that people were already using. If "Nigger" had persisted in the common vernacular as long as "Mormon" has, I can almost guarantee that that exonym would be used by so-called "Niggers" in the same way the term "Mormons" is used by Christians. The only difference is that efforts to eradicate the "N-word" started bearing fruit many decades ago, whereas efforts to eradicate the "M-word" are only just now starting to succeed. TheOtter (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. So, yeah, Floquenbeam, not so much. —valereee (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Administrators' noticeboard[reply]

February 2021

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Using ethnic slurs to make a point after having been warned repeatedly at AN and on their user talk not to use ethnic slurs to make a point. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —valereee (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block Appeal

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheOtter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

According to the block log entry, I "have been blocked from editing... for using ethnic slurs to make a point". I do not deny this charge in the least, as this is exactly what I did. However, as Floquenbeam pointed out on the Administrators' noticeboard, the term was "not being intentionally used as actual pejoratives directed at other people". Indeed, it was not even done in the context of a Wikipedia article. The slur was used on a Talk page, as an analogy in a discussion about a different slur. Yes, I did repeatedly use an ethnic slur; but virtually every other participant in the conversation repeatedly used a religious slur without any apparent criticism, much less adverse action.

Beyond the confines of the Talk page, I think it also relevant that several Wikipedia pages use the exact same slur in their titles and/or content, so obviously, Wikipedia has no more problem with this ethnic slur being used in a clinical/encyclopedic manner than it does, the religious slur that was actually being discussed.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that this block be overturned. TheOtter (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In reviewing the ANI discussion and your edits, I must concur with what was said there. I think there are ways for you to get your point across without continually invoking the N-word, especially after having been asked to stop. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

331dot, I appreciate you taking the time to review this. Since I'm no longer blocked, this is somewhat academic at this point, but I'm still quite confused and could use some guidance to avoid problems in the future. (I might add that I am also autistic, which may be part of the problem: I think much more logically than others, which is a benefit in some situations and a hindrance in others. Please know that I am not now, nor was I ever, being disingenuous nor deliberately obtuse; I am sincerely asking for some help here.)

If my block was upheld because "there are ways for [me] to get [my] point across without continually invoking the N-word, especially after having been asked to stop", were the other people in the conversation also "blocked for continually invoking the [M]-word, especially after having been asked to stop"? If so, why were any of us blocked when Wikipedia has multiple pages for each of these slurs (e.g. N*gger, M*rmons)? If not, why was I singled out?

Thanks! TheOtter (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can only address each individual situation in front of me, and not the entirety of Wikipedia. The issue is not the existence of articles on racial slurs or alleged slurs(I wasn't aware that "M" was considered a slur and that actually seems to be a matter of debate) but the use of those words in discussion. Wikipedia articles are not censored, but discussion must be civil and respectful.
If you have grievances with other users, please address them with proper channels. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, 331dot. To be clear, I never had a problem with any other users. My problem is with the MOS and, more to the point, feeling that productive discussion is being suppressed by deliberate ignorance of available evidence. Does that make sense? TheOtter (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the main point of confusion is the false equivalency of the two words. They are not treated the same by 99% of the English-speaking population. They have significantly different histories, and significantly different connotations. Just because you say they cause the same level of offense does not make it true. Relentlessly insisting that they be treated exactly the same is simply not going to result in a good outcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam, thanks again for your continued input. I really do get what you're saying, and I hope you realize that I never meant to charge anyone with deliberate attempts at offense. But the problem remains that, to quote your statement, the fact that "the two words... are not treated the same by 99% of the English-speaking population" is the exact problem I've been trying to address. That's why I've been arguing an update to the MOS, which I hoped would allow for a productive discussion and some kind of consensus or, at the very least, compromise. Instead, I've seen very little attempt to even consider my position. The problem I've had, all along, is that the general consensus seems to be "I don't think it's offensive, so who cares what anyone else thinks?"--which, of course, doesn't help anything. If anything, it merely underscores the reverse of another of your statements: relentlessly insisting that they be treated differently is simply not going to result in a good outcome. TheOtter (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheOtter, I think maybe you're misunderstanding some stuff.
  1. Wikipedia is WP:NOT CENSORED. This means our articles, not the rest of the project. We do use very offensive terms in our articles, because we must, in order to provide information about those terms. This doesn't mean we use those same terms in our talk pages. When Floquenbeam wrote "I assume you're finished using ethnic slurs in order to make your point about the terminology used by people about your church?", what they were saying was, "Stop doing this now."
  2. Reliable sources have treated the n-word as offensive for decades. This is not yet true for the m-word. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. When reliable sources have agreed the m-word is offensive, Wikipedia will treat it that way. In the meantime many Wikipedians won't see it that way simply because you do. You don't get to make this decision for Wikipedia. The COJCOLDS doesn't get to make that decision for Wikipedia. Reliable sources make that decision. I totally believe you and will stop using the term, but your argument isn't with me. It's not with Wikipedia. It's with the various MOS. —valereee (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Valereee, and thanks for your continued considerateness. Your argument is totally fair, and I sincerely appreciate your personal attempt at kinder language. However, with all due respect, I actually think that you may be the one who's misunderstanding. If you're implying that I claimed that Wikipedia should be censored, that assertion is most assuredly inaccurate. What I claimed is that, in this particular care, the MOS is incorrect and should be fixed to better reflect the dictates of civil discourse--especially now that many, perhaps most, other MOS (e.g. the Associated Press, multiple universities, etc.) have done so.
So, yes, I agree that my issue is with the MOS. That was my argument in the first place: that even if Wikipedia's MOS were formerly correct on this point (an argument I still reject), it's at the very least outdated. All I asked is that it be updated appropriately, but as I said above, no one else seems to want to consider that possibility. TheOtter (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite possible lots of people would be open to that possibility, especially if you can show that other MOS and reliable sources have moved to that. But no one is going to listen to you if you keep using the n-word in your arguments. —valereee (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints references in articles

[edit]

Hi, I saw your comments I think from back in April on this issue. I just tried to unilaterrally improve such references in a lot of articles, mainly though by moving various uses of "M-----" to "Latter-day Saints" or more often of "M-----ism". Such as Baptism in Mormonism etc. I had about 30 edits reverted, and am very frustrated that so much work I did was undone. This is a huge uphill battle in my experience. The extreme is that even in the article on Russell M. Nelson those editors who have tried to remove mentions of "LDS Church" from it have had their changes reverted. The other issue that really frustrates me is that Category:Mormon missionaries and its sub-cats still use that word. That category has this heading "Individuals who have served one or more full-time proselytizing missions for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), including mission presidents and their wives who accompanied them. Individuals who served missions prior to 1844 and were never associated with the LDS Church should be placed in the parent Category:Latter Day Saint missionaries. Individuals who served missions prior to 1844 and later became affiliated with the LDS Church may be included in a "Mormon missionary" category." which is a truly bizarre heading. So the category is officilally limited to those who were missionaries for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but there is a refusal to name it as such.

Some of this resistance comes from people making comments about the campaign being "started by a 93 year old man" which misses the point a whole lot. First off, it is pretty clear that the whole First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 apostles endorses the current set of moves, although whether they all have the energy to keep it up without President Nelson around is a little less clear. Secondly, the introduction of the new Church symbol, done by Elder Gong but clearly endorsed by the whole top leadership, is also part of this change. The biggest indication that President Nelson and his age have little relevance to the permanence of these changes is various changes in institutional names, such as renaming the Wifi system, changing the emails of employees and officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, changing the names of internt sites, changing the name of The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square (although having read some of the work of J. Spencer Cornwall, I know that the old name won out by popular usage, Cornwall in the 1950s insisted the formal name was Tabernacle Choir, Salt Lake City; but he was of an age to remember when the Ogeden Tabernacle Choir was also a thing) and there are many related. There has also been a lot of related changes in the names of indepdent blogs and websites that follow this usage. One big stumbling block is we have things like Thomas G. Alexander's recent biography of Brigham Young that basically say they were written and too far along the publishing process to conform to the new guidelines, but we have few good scholarly sources that show what an intention conforming to the new guidelines is. Another issue is that those who invoke common name rarely consider the time issue, and they try to treat all uses as of equal value. They would probably treat a source that said "there were two major churches that helped in the cleanup after Hurrincane Katrina, the Mormon Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" as a useable source to indicate something, other than the writer just does not know what they are talking about. I suspect I get too worked up about things in this manner, but I also feel like my ideas and perspective are entirely ignored. It is really tiring to have so many edits overruled, and the missionaries category is such an egregious case of refusing to conform to the proper name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I really do not know what to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • I hear you, John. I actually think the bigger issue is that this "change" wasn't "started by a 93-year-old man" in 2018; it was started by a 24-year-old man in 1830. The fact that the Church's critics invented a derisive and offensive exonym doesn't seem to matter to a lot of people; they see that the Church of Jesus Christ, in a desperate attempt to get people to connect the slur with the Christians it represents, has used the term "M*rmons" for SEO and its pre-internet equivalent, so that must make it correct—just like N.W.A using the term "N*ggers" makes that correct. Unless it doesn't. Who could possibly know? TheOtter (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harrisburg Pennsylvania Temple

[edit]

Thank you for your edits for Harrisburg Pennsylvania Temple! Temples that haven't gone to construction cannot have their own page. I think historical temples is the only exception. This is per wikipedia guidelines on buildings. Feel free to create the page after it goes into construction. I hope this helps. Thanks! - Dmm1169 (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! TheOtter (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheOtter&oldid=1187196313"