Alienburrito

Theosis article

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

Everything you insist on adding to the Theosis article is already there. Do not continue to enter your data without arriving at a concensus on that pages discussion page. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

2nd Warning

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. I you continue you will be blocked. If you feel your edits have merit they should be discussed on the talk page until a concensus is met. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Alien, it is not acceptable to delete warnings off of your personal discussion page. Although the history will show that it existed, for you to delete it when it is appropriate posted is very bad form and may make future discipline more harsh than necessary. Please leave it so that admins will see the progress of warnings to you and the resultant change in your editing. If your editing does not change than appropriate action will be taken. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

remember - this stormrider is an LDS apologist - with all the misdirection and blatant dishonesty that goes with it . I've made edits he didnt like about church history, and never claimed ownership of anything. Alienburrito 21:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Alien, ownership is not stated, but it is demonstrated. You might want to review the article on ownership and its meaning. You might also want to visit here to gain an better understanding of neutrality.

As an aside, you would be more appropriate to call me a LDS or even a student of religion than an apologies. Calling me an apologist is your point of view. Curious, would you call yourself an anti-Mormon?

My being a member of a church does allow others to understand my perspective and possibily some of my beliefs, just as it does for other adherents of other religions. However, on Wikipedia we strive to keep our edits as neutral as possible. We do not edit to ensure our "cause" is heard. If you edit for a cause, you will find your edits almost always being reverted or changed; they are just too POV for an encyclopedia. You are just beginning to understand Wikipedia policy, you would be wise to spend some time just getting comfortabel with their varied nuances here. Please read the five pillars of Wikipedia. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(i deleted my respose to stormrider - I thought i was too in-your-face with it) Alienburrito 02:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Stormrider - I never demonstrated ownership. You know as well as I do that undoing an edit is no more ME claiming ownership than it is YOU claiming ownership when you undo an edit. Just be prepared to be accused of claiming ownership next time you undo an edit.

ANd speaking of point of view, if would be in your best interest to be very carefull about undoing references to LDS church history that church leaders tend to downplay or ignore (like the theosis/deification/exaltation/whatever-the-right-term-is issue) Alienburrito 10:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

How do the LDS determine what is doctrine?

I hope we can have a civil discussion about this, but i'm not convinced we can. However, I'm going to give it a shot anyway.

You and I have bucked heads a bit lately, and it got me thinking. How exactly does an LDS determine what is church doctrine and what is not? I would THINK that a sermon by Joseph Smith would be accepted as an official statement of doctrine or practice. Apparently it's not. Some of your comments have indicated that you believe that only the Scriptures of the LDS church (http://scriptires.lds.org) qualify as doctrinal statements or guidelines for practice. Yet at the same time, it appears that the church does teach things that at best are only hinted at in the scriptures. An example of this would be the idea of a Heavenly Mother. THere's a song in the church hymnal about it, Hymn 292 , and several articles at the church website that refer to it, for example Daughters of God from the Nov 1991 Ensign by President Hinkley. There's no references to this idea anywhere in the scriptures that i'm aware of, except perhaps in a very vague way. (And no, I don't plan on getting into the flap i've heard about surrounding this issue. I just want to use it as an example of a belief that is far from being clearly stated in the scriptures).

I've also always been given the impression the church also promotes itself as having prophetic leaders who can speak by inspiration, which solves the problem of people having wildly different views of the Bible because of its lack of clarity on certain things.

So, back to the origional question. How do you determine LDS doctrine? from the LDS Scriptures? From the public statements of the church's prophets? Some of both? Pick and choose the stuff you like from both and ignore the rest? Some other totally different way? Alienburrito 22:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

I am not aware of any time when I was uncivil to you. As an experienced editor I have pointed out Wikipedia policy to you and have warned you when you have violated that policy. For those warnings I have used templates provided for those warnings approved for all editors. Further, I don't think we have had any conflict over doctrine or theology. However, we have had an editorial disagreement on the purpose of articles and what content should be included and what goes beyond a given topic.

What is the diffrence between doctrine and theology? In many religions some draw a fine line between them. I will only speak to my interpretation for our discussion. Gospel doctrine is synonymous with the truths of salvation. It comprises the tenets, teachings, and true theories found in the scriptures; it includes the principles, precepts, and revealed philosophies of pure religion; prophetic dogmas, maxims, and views are embraced within its folds; it is all truth that leads to salvation. Theology is the field of study of a given religion; though it includes issues of salvation, it goes beyond salvation into mysteries, philosophical questions, etc. Often times members of all religions use the terms interchangably; however, that is error. They are not interchangable and address different things. I have even heard and read leaders use the term doctrine inappropriately, when in fact they mean theology and vice-versa.

How does this apply to our conversation? You bring up the concept of Heavenly Mother and cited an LDS Hymn and a talk by Gordon B. Hinkley. It is not found in scripture and has no bearing on salvation. Whether an individual believes that a Heavenly Mother exists means nothing to their salvation. It has absolutely no value to exaltation or being saved, or any other term in the lexicon of salavtion. However, it would be appropriate to state that it is most certainly part of LDS theology. LDS believe, as the hymn written by Eliza R. Snow states, "Truth is reason; truth eternal / Tells me I’ve a mother there" (Hymns, 1985, no. 292.). To LDS it is logical for us. We believe that both man and woman are created in the image and likeness of our God. These topics are interesting, but as I stated above, they have nothing to do with salvation. Another way to think about it would be believing in it or disbelieving in it will not damn you or save you.

Sermons to me are not doctrinal unless they have been entered into canon. Sermons are generally fall into the area of theology. For example, the King Follet discourse that you want to cite, is a talk given at a funeral. That is practically the sum total of Joseph Smith's teachings on this topic. However, anti-Mormons have had a field day with this single sermon and virtually every one of them cite it ad nauseum. If it was so important it would have been entered into the canon along with all the other revelations given by Joseph Smith. This also is the issue with Snow's often quoted statement, "As man now is God once was, and as God now is man may become." I find this teaching to pose more questions than it answers. I believe the man principle being taught is the concept of eternal progression. The questions are endless, if our Father in Heaven is not the "first" God, then who was? We know that God is eternal without beginning or end. I believe this concept is a mystery that has no explanation. Many will repeat it, but none understand it, grasp it, or comprehend its real meaning.

I think one of the most controversial teachings is the statement that all things taught by insprition over the pulpit in General Conference is truth. The BIG question is what is inspired and what it not? Some leaders will say that it is up to the members to know by the guidance of the Holy Spirit what is true. I believe that, but it provides too wide a door for leaders to go back and say that so and so really was not inspired when he said it, etc. As a LDS, you will find me a bit liberal. To me when a general authority, and specifically the prophet, says "thus saith the Lord God..."; that is when I know they are speaking as a prophet and no longer as a man.

A problem yet to be addressed in the LDS church is when is a general authority speaking as a man and when is he speaking as a prophet. The Roman Catholic church addressed these issues in Vatican II more clearly after choking on it for centuries. The best we have been able to do, and in some respect it demonstrates the faith and strong belief in the Holy Spirit, is the counsel that each of us must follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit first and foremost.

In closing, the church does teach that intrepretation of scripture is guided first by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, seond, by all scripture: Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price,and third, by the guidance of prophetic clarification. I hope this helps to clarify a few points of my beliefs and motivations for my statements. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, stormrider, you've clarified your position pretty well, and yes, you definately seem very liberal for a Mormon. So basically you're picking and choosing what parts of LDS teaching you feel comfortable with, and rejecting the rest? That's cool. Lot of mainstream christans aproach things that way too. That's part of the reason i dislike much of Christianity, there's very little in mainstream christianity short of the warm fuzzy stuff, and a very general morality that's really not much different from nonreligious approaches. You make it sound like the LDS are moving that way too, and no longer offer much that's unique. I do the same with my own beliefs generally, however i don't claim to be a christian, a buddhist, or anything in particular.

By the way, I mention the idea of a Heavenly Mother not as an item of salvation, but as something that's not spelled out in the scriptures, yet many, including the president of the church, apparently beleives in, which i figure means that doctrine is determined by more than the scriptures. Of course, I'm sure you know that, and are dancing around the issue.

And there's a reason the King Follet sermon gets tossed around a lot. In the first paragraph of the sermon, Joseph Smith very specifically says he was inspired by the Holy Spirit: "I feel disposed to speak on the subject in general, and offer you my ideas, so far as I have ability, and so far as I shall be inspired by the Holy Spirit to dwell on this subject." You can say it's not doctrine, but that's on YOU as a mormon for rejecting a teaching inspired by the Holy Spirit through the prophet who started the LDS Church. Prentending such things are not doctrine come across as very dishonest (definately uncivil behavhior on MY book). Perhaps that's the fault of church leaders rather than you. The Church leaders do seem to try and gloss over this sermon pretty heavily.

I don't think of myself as picking and choosing what I will believe or not. LDS believe in some bedrock principles; some of them would be 1) the free agency of humanity to choose whom they will serve. 2) The confirmation of truth through the Holy Spirit is the paramount manner of learning truth (one can read scripture, but without the confirmation of the Holy Spirit one can not know of the truthfulness of anything), 3) there is a purpose to mortality; we were not simply created to sing praises to God for eternity, 4) God is the source of all truth regardless of which religion is being discussed, 5) God lives, loves his children, and talks to them, 5) without the atonement of Jesus Christ we are nothing.

I would say Heavenly Mother is not doctrine, but is theology. Do I believe she exists? Yes, it is logical to me, but I also think it is a mystery to large extent. There are many things that simply are not covered in or by scripture, but that does not mean that all truth stops at that specific boundary. I have never rejected completely the King Follet discourse nor do I believe it is false; I have stated it means nothing to my salvation whether it is true are not. This is a big distinction that I am not sure you are grasping. Parts of the Discourse is problematic for me personally and unfortunately there is no further clarification. It stands as a sermon.

You seem to want every word that ever comes from a man called of God to be the words of God. That standard is too high; if it were the case, Peter would never have rejected Jesus three times, Judas would have never rejected the Savior lead to his crucifiction. There are countless examples where men of God were found to just be men. For it to be otherwise is to deny that each of us is mortal and that we would move beyond mortality to perfection. You might want to give this area some additional thought.

The purpose of the LDS church is the salvation of mankind; its purpose is not to expound upon all the mysteries of God that might be nice to know, but have nothing to do with salvation. Even Jesus counciled to provide milk first. I expect the eternities to be the constant learning of truth; I also think it is impossible to know all truth in this life.

We might just have a difference of opinion on the definition of civility. If I have offended you, I gladly apologize. However, as I LDS I think I have stated the doctrine of the church correctly and honestly as I can. cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Stormrider - I'm not sure I entirely get the distinction between theology and doctrine to be honest. My understanding of the terms are this: Theology is asking questions such as "Exactly What is the Nature of God?" "Is He Eternal?" "Has He always been God?" (I bring these questions up only as an example because they sort of relate to the topic we're discussing - not to steer the discussion in that direction) Those questions that we can find a firm answer to is what i would call Doctrine. SO basically I could say i see Theology as the process of trying to determine what doctrine is. Asking questions about Heavenly Mother to me would be theology, saying the existence of a Heavenly Mother is logical, to me would be saying that idea is doctrinal.

Yes, I've read the bible. The Men of God had many flaws. King David's adultery, Noah's drunkedness, Solomon's numerous concubines. But I see a difference between the examples you site of Peter's denial and Judas's betrayal, and something like the King Follet Sermon. When Peter denied he knew Jesus, he wasn't commenting on who Jesus was, or who God was, on the nature of salvation, or anything that related to doctrine. Judas is something else though. I'm not sure where to put his betrayal really. Was he chosen deliberatly because of his inclinations to behavave in the way he did, because part of God's plan was that one of Jesus's associates would betray him? I'm not sure really, but I'm thinking that's a possibility, and in a really bizzare twist might qualify as doctrine or inspired behavior. But when it boils down to it, this is part of the reason I dont consider myself a christian - all these twists and turns when pondering such issues really drive me nuts. Alienburrito 01:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Do not post senseless warning

This is a joke right? You a newbie that has yet to learn our core principles as demonstrated by your edits, are going to go around correcting others because your opinion is not equated to truth? You might want to check out ownership of articles; as in no one owns an article, which would include you. You might also want to check out what Wikipeida is not so that you understand that this is not a place for your personal pet issues, soapbox, or a personal blog. It is an encyclopedia. What is probably the most humerous is your silly statement about ojectivity; you are the editor who is insisting on telling everyone else what LDS believe and ignore all references and quotes that conflict with what you say LDS believe. Please obsevrve your own advice first; it is highly applicable. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Give it up stormrider. You know you've inserted obvious Point Of View material into articles recently, as well as removed well sourced and well supported statements from articles. All changes are logged, remember? Alienburrito 09:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

The Insular Cases

Only the "fundamental rights" under the federal constitution apply to Puerto Rico like the Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the Comity Clause) that prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner, with regard to basic civil rights. The clause also embraces a right to travel, so that a citizen of one state can go and enjoy privileges and immunities in any other state; this clause apply to Puerto Rico due to federal law 48 U.S.C. § 737.[1][2][3].

The U.S. Congress expressly extended the U.S. Constitution clause to Puerto Rico through U.S. Law 48 U.S.C. § 737 in 1947.

Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure applies to Puerto Rico.

In a brief concurrence in the judgment of Torres v. Puerto Rico, Justice Brennan argued that any implicit limits from the Insular Cases on the basic rights granted by the Constitution (including especially the Bill of Rights) were anachronistic in the 1970s.

Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 (1987), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that ruled unanimously that Federal Courts have the power to enforce extraditions based on the Extradition Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution.

Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (P. R.), Ltd. 302 U.S. 253 (1937) was a notable Supreme Court of the United States case. The issue was whether a local ("insular") law could be pre-empted by the Commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

The Natural Born U.S. Citizen status was expressly extended through 8 U.S.C. § 1402.

The U.S. Law was expressly extended through U.S. Law 48 U.S.C. § 734.

The U.S. Citizens in the U.S. Territories has constitutional rights expressly extended by the U.S. Congress by Law and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Island was expressly inserted on the United State definition for geography and Nationality purpose by the Nationality Act of 1940.

Guam, American Samoa was inserted on the definition by the Inmigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Finally Mariana Island was extended on the definition on 1986. --74.213.70.230 (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.70.230 (talk)

Yes, i was somewhat innaccurate about the insular cases - SCOTUS ruled that only parts of the constitution applied to territories, not NONE of it, and not ALL of it.

A note - legislation is unable to change the fact that the Supreme court ruled that the Constitution DOES NOT GRANT citizenship to people born in territories. Thus, such people are citizens by law, not by birth. Only two things can change such a ruling - a new ruling from the Supreme Court, or a constitutional amendment. Alienburrito (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2010 (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 tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may 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) 03:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)