Talk:Temple Lot

Garden of Eden

Joseph Smith, Jr., the leader and prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement had declared that the area of Independence, Missouri was near the site of the Garden of Eden.

"Garden of Eden" ? I never heard that before. Is there a source for this? --Nerd42 (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

From the scriptures referencing "Adam-ondi-Ahman", no such conclusion can be drawn. What I have heard is that Adam-ondi-Ahman is where Adam dwelt after he was ejected from the Garden of Eden. We don't know how long Adam and Eve wandered before they decided to dwell (settle down) somewhere. Val42 05:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the references I've provided; I made clear that this is not official church doctrine, but was apparently believed by many early members. - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Second coming

"...including one temple that Jesus would visit during the events leading up to the Second Coming of Christ."

Is this statement an accurate depiction of LDS belief? It seems to me that, in order for Jesus to visit the temple, the Second Coming would have had to already have happened. How could He visit the temple without first coming again? Ecto 02:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sacred site

"This is a sacred site for all Latter Day Saints." - A rewrite is in order, I think. I've been an active member of the (mainstream) LDS church for 25 years and I've never heard of it, let alone consider it sacred. I'd be willing to bet that most of my church associates don't consider it esepcially sacred, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk • contribs)

By "mainstream," I assume you mean the Utah LDS church; other denominations in that movement might consider that term questionable, if not offensive, but I think I understand your meaning. As to the question of its sacredness, the word "sacred" carries many connotations, and may mean different things to different people. I was a Utah LDS for ten years, and I knew several people in your church who felt that the lot was sacred simply because Joseph Smith had dedicated it in accordance with a revelation (D&C 57:1-5, 82:2-5) from God specifically giving its exact location (if for no other reason--and some of the folks I talked to had other reasons for thinking it so), and because of the trouble the LDS had in this town. Brigham Young felt it was sacred enough to want to get back to Jackson County and build an LDS temple on this lot (Times and Seasons 6 [1 July 1845]:956), and your church felt it sacred enough to build an expensive visitor center next to it. While the LDS church has certainly changed its vision of exactly where "Zion" is located and what it constitutes since the early days of your church, the fact remains that the lot was indicated by (alleged) divine revelation--and that fact alone made it sacred to many LDS I spoke to, as well as to myself, when I was a member. So with all due respect, I would have to disagree with your statement, and your call for a rewrite. - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Church burning incident

The identity of the vandal of the 1990 burning of the church on the Temple Lot has been given as "Jordan Smith" by a number of sources, which I have added. There's been a history of attempts to quash inclusion of this name here and at Church of Christ (Temple Lot) in the past, which have led to edit blocks, and any further attempts to do so by reversions will be duly investigated. Snocrates 21:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I only just now saw the above entry here, and so pardon my not replying until now. It is an outrageous violation of several strict Wikipedia policies (I also changed the headline from the defamatory and derogatory term 'vandal' to the more accurate 'civil rights activist.' If you check the page history,* you will see that Snocrates has been informed that the incident of January 1990 was a political protest, and a public prophecy well within the context of Christianity and the Latter Day Saint movement. In fact, Joseph Smith, Jr. was also incarcerated in Missouri prison on charges including arson and burglary[1][2], and only escaped being "convicted" of such by escaping the jail in April, 1839. Snocrates has excised the accurate information about the January 1990 protest, and insisted an branding the protester a mere "vandal" and "arsonist," which is analogous to branding any civil rights or human rights activists as mere "vandals" or--more typically--as mere "troublemakers."

The following are a couple of hurried attempts to insert into the article more accurate and verifiable information about the church protest in 1990...this type of information deserved to be discussed and edited, not quickly deleted outright...and yet, in both cases, it was quickly deleted by the offending editors...apparently preferring to publish malicious "shoddy reporting" (libel) rather than facts.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temple_Lot&diff=175659176&oldid=175584017
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_Christ_%28Temple_Lot%29&diff=147712826&oldid=147701854

Snocrates [and 'theJadeKnight' before him] also deleted a passage which was in careful compliance with WP:BLP, and replaced it with several clearly libelous and defamatory statements and citations. (see excerpt below). I changed his choice of headline for this section, and watch...he'll probably change it back, adding a dismissive comment to his edit summary...as if the most at stake here is an edit war, when to me, it feels more like defamation and invasion of privacy. Once again, I wish some editors would 'mind their own business'...they are not appointed my judge, jury, nor 'executioner,' and yet at times, they seem to believe that is exactly what they are....they want to grossly mischaracterize something which happened 18 years ago, and which they know nothing about except for what they read in particularly inaccurate and libelous "day after" reports published. To this day, no media organization has interviewed the protester, nor researched to any meaningful extent what happened and why on January 1, 1990, and until that happens, ALL the media reports available are categorically "poorly sourced" or "poorly researched" and should be used with great caution, or not at all. How would you like it if you were involved in an incident which came to the public's attention via press reports, but then ALL the so-called "reporters" involved, only interviewed people who particularly despised or misunderstood you and the incident? And then how would you like it if those people made a series of false allegations about you, and then uncorroborated and unverified, those false allegations were published at the top of front pages? And then how would you like it if a steady stream of ill-informed Wikipedia editors kept inserted the false information in Wikipedia articles, while persistently blocking and deleting the FACTS?

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons?t=4.3.#4.6. "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies: We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."

Jsmith 51389 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been taken up at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Need_some_help.21 Snocrates 01:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

---and apparently has been resolved there, courtesy of level-headed remarks by several editors, including Snocrates. And I agree to the "new" headline given this thread by Snocrates, it is a nice compromise between both our earlier efforts. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just restored the information Snocrates deleted on December 3, before citations were added. If the article names the protester, it should also mention that he pleaded not guilty to those particular charges "on First Amendment grounds" and the article should also state that he claimed the incident was a protest: Verifiable facts which are described or alluded to in the existing citations. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to specify which citations refer to this information. The Deseret News article on sentencing makes no reference to the First Amendment, and it is the citation which has been applied to this sentence. Snocrates 22:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As usual, you're exploiting the fact that to date, no news reporter has actually investigated or "reported" on the protest, choosing merely to record hearsay or accusations made by persons who also have not investigated the incident. If you wonder how that could be so...well...you're doing the same thing: You don't ask questions or do research, you just grab anything which mentions the incident, and post it as if it were factual. Nevertheless, verifiable facts about the protest/prophecy are in two of the links in the article, this one [3] and this one[4]. More importantly, police and court documents contain plenty of strongly-verified information as to the nature of the protest, and its purpose, and exactly what happened and didn't happen. Ideally, a citation could be included which states the name of the case, the case number, and the name and date and nature of the appeal, etc. But it turns out, that information is not readily available...the office in question won't provide it over the phone, and requires that someone mail in a request for it. Would you like to do that? Until that information is obtained, then perhaps a citation could simply say "police and court documents relating to the case." If you don't believe that official police and court documents relating to the case confirm and verify the facts as stated, then it is your responsibility to prove such documents don't exist, or that they are not factual, or that they do not verify the information stated in my edits. It is not my responsibility to be a "gofer" for uninformed skeptics. And incidentally, I would appreciate it if you would provide your own legal name (your "real name") when you are editing 'biographical material about a living person' on Wikipedia. It is only fair. Otherwise, you are making out to be some kind of an 'anonymous judge' of a private citizen, whose name you know, but who doesn't know your name. Fortunately, the Wikipedia Foundation is aware of the problems caused by such anonymity vs. lack of anonymity, and strongly cautions against engaging in 'ego battles' or 'edit wars' with a named person, Wiki-editor or not.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:STALK#Wikistalking

You've been less antagonistic and more professional than many others who have taken a look at this situation; I'm willing to be a respectful co-worker of yours here at Wikipedia, not adverserial. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's how the principle of WP:OR works at WP. I'm not exploiting that fact, I'm just trying to operate within WP guidelines. We can only write about what others have written about; unfortunately, if they are inaccurate or incomplete, so too is WP, but that's the nature of the beast. I don't mind keeping the statements in with a "citation needed" tags for a little while in case someone can turn something up. Snocrates 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind reading and replying to my mention of official documents relating to the case? Thanks. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, would you mind taking a look at the link I provided? Especially the section entitled "Posting of personal information." Thanks. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also..in lieu of providing your real name on this Talk Page, would you mind explaining why you don't want to include your real name in a discussion on this Talk Page? Thanks. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I did read your entire comment, and I said pretty much what I wanted to say. (1) As for the police/court documents, I assume those would be classified as a primary source, but the question might arise as to whether they qualify as a "published" source under WP:SOURCES. I'm not aware of a similar situation elsewhere on WP and I don't know the answer; to find out I would have to ask someone else on WP or research it out. (2) I'm not engaging in wikistalking by "posting personal information" — that policy is referring to the practice of posting information that is not relevant to an article or a topic and is not reported in reliable sources. I have written the name of a person convicted of a crime as reported in numerous media reports, that's all. (3) I see no reason to post my name here and am not interested in a "tit-for-tat" exchange with respect to that. (4) This is purely my opinion, but I think you need to give this issue a rest, as I plan to. Snocrates 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The user dispute here spilled over into Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#It's official: I'm being 'wiki-stalked'. This talk page discussion should be focused on the article. Cool Hand Luke 20:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Should article "Temple Lot" be merged with article "Church of Christ - Temple Lot"?

(I hope it is okay to place this near the top of the page, for now. I don't want it "lost in the shuffle." Feel free to move it to the bottom of this page if necessary). It might be too much of a project for anyone to take on, but ideally, shouldn't there be just one article on the subject of Temple Lot? It seems that for now, both articles pretty well attempt to explain exactly the same history, beliefs, location, etc.

• 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Lot
• 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Christ_%28Temple_Lot%29

Jsmith 51389 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most editors will look for new topics at the end of the article, so placing it at the top will be more likely to cause it to be "lost in the shuffle."

Second, a better way to do what you wanted above would be like this:

1. Temple Lot
2. Church of Christ (Temple Lot)

or inlne like this: Temple Lot and Church of Christ (Temple Lot)

Third, I think that these describe two different things: the property and the religious organization. I don't think that they should be merged, but they should be examined to see if there are any redundancies that could be reduced. However, some other editor may agree with you and want the merge. Wikipedia is a strange animal that you just sort of learn to handle. Welcome to the party. — Val42 (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the land is not notable by itself, I think this article should be merged into the Church's article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Since there are three separate (and conflicting) denominations involved, the Church of Christ name definitely skews the history. If anything I would merge it the other way so that Temple Lot becames the main story. Americasroof (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose merge : I would oppose a merge of any kind. The land is notable; it has significance to a number of Latter Day Saint organizations and is significant in the early history of the Latter Day Saint movement. The church article is about a specific denomination, which happens to own the property and has branches throughout the United States and in some other countries, not just on the Temple Lot property. While the article on the property may be about as large as it could ever be, the article on the church org. could certainly be expanded in many ways. Snocrates 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose merge : My beliefs are similar to snocrates's. Just because a piece of property is owned by an organization doesn't mean that they should be merged. The property and the church are each notable in their own right. Also, note that the church is technically called "Church of Christ". the "(Temple Lot)" is just a disambiguator, and while common, is not part of the official name of the church. McKay (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: The parcel of land known as the Temple Lot has religious significance to several denominations, not just the one that owns it. A merge would de-emphasize the significance held by the non-owner denominations. You wouldn't merge Kirtland Temple with Community of Christ for the same reasons. – jaksmata 13:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

ok noted, thanks :) I was concerned by the duplicate section that appear in both articles. I guess I'll remove Temple_Lot#Church_burnings, since it was more targeted specifically to the church. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

URGENT RE: SECTION DELETED

As per advice from several relevant authorities, I have deleted the offending paragraph in the Temple Lot article, and the identical one at 'Church of Christ Temple Lot.' I am not doing this as an amateur Wikipedia editor, but as the private citizen who is being 'outed' and defamed in two Wikipedia articles (so far). I have been advised to delete the offending passage, and then wait and see who exactly restores it. That person (unless it is a SmackBot, an automatic revert), will in turn be 'outed' and 'named' as the subject of a criminal investigation. Yes, this is a 'legal threat,' and I don't appreciate various inept Wikipedia administrators threatening me in order to dissuade me from complaining to law enforcement about a crime which is being committed: the willful invasion of privacy, and defamation of a U.S. Citizen, in contravention to numerous local, state, and federal laws, as well as in contravention to numerous strict and explicit Wikipedia policies regarding inclusion of a person's name in a Wikipedia article. The following excerpt is just one example of Wikipedia guidelines which have been willfully, persistently and openly ignored and defied by Wikipedia editor after Wikipedia editor. Again...whoever restores the defamatory passage which includes my name--or ANY paragraph, sentence or article which includes my name--will be investigated and [hopefully] prosecuted for doing so. In other words, I WILL PRESS CRIMINAL CHARGES against the perpetrator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_names

Privacy of names

Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger.

Jsmith 51389 (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that there are so many cited media sources which state his name, I can't justify removing omitting it against consensus.. however, we should consider that this sort of situation is what the Privacy of names portion of WP:BLP was intended to address. While I can see both sides of the argument here - I have to think of how I'd feel if it was me, who many years ago whilst in my own little corner of the world, did something that was against the law and happened to get a bit of press coverage, and now many years later I come to discover it is memorialized for eternity on a top 10 website. Despite the legal threats, for which I've blocked Jsmith_51389 - please consider omitting the name from the article as a courtesy to another human being in the digital age, who must support himself & his family - despite things in his past. --Versageek 21:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a privacy of names issue for the user. We didn't give the age or the middle initial, and the name "Jordan Smith" is so dirt common that we already have an article about a completely unrelated athlete. It's clear from user's comments that he doesn't like the coverage of the event as "arson" and "vandalism," preferring to view it as a racial protest and/or prophecy. That's why user removed the whole paragraph instead of the name. That said, I am not opposed to removing the name, and Snocrates appears to have already revised the paragraph. Cool Hand Luke 05:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cool Hand Luke that the name identity is not the crux of the issue here, judging from the editor's past behavior. I didn't do the revision of the paragraph to exclude the name, someone else did, but I don't object because I don't think it's a big deal. If people want to know the name, it's available in all of the referenced citations, but as Cool Hand Luke says, a "Smith" name without an initial or birth date is so commonplace the decision to include it or not does not make a huge difference to the content of the articles. It's also widely available on this talk page now, so it's not like taking it out of one paragraph is going to restore anonymity. Snocrates 05:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Section on Differences of Temple Lot With Other Denominations

I STRONGLY disagree with the choice to delete the following (which included a referenced quote):

The Temple Lot Church has several major differences with other Latter Day Saint denominations including the Temple Lot is run by the "12 Apostles" with no formal head while the two biggest Latter Day Saint denominations both have Presidents and thus the in view of the Temple Lot group is a sacreligious because it creates a designated Prophet. The temple as conceived by Smith was to be called "The House of the Lord for the Presidency." The Temple Lot church holds that Smith's later teachings are in apostasy.

The differences are so fundamental that Temple Lot has sworn never to cooperate with the other denominations as long as they hold their beliefs. Clarence L. Wheaton, one of the 12 Apostles of the Temple Lot Church, wrote:

It is not for sale at any price . . . to the LDS Church in Utah, nor to any other division of the Restoration. We hold [it] as a sacred trust before the Lord. (The Independence Temple of Zion by H. Michael Marquardt - xmission.com - Retrieved January 20, 2008)

The reason why Temple Lot will not let either the LDS or RLDS build on the site is fundamental to understanding the vehamence and intractability of their position. Most outsiders viewing the situation will say "why can't they just get along." I thought the section explained why they can't. I really get the impression that the edits are trying to sanitize history. Americasroof (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

First, please WP:AGF in other editors. Second, this article is about the Temple Lot as a piece of property, not the Temple Lot church. There is an article for that and that's why wikilinks exist. One sentence should be sufficient to state that the Temple Lot church has stated that it will not cooperate with other Latter Day Saint organizations. Snocrates 02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Snocrates, I always assume good faith with your edits. Some important information is getting trashed with the active edits. I'm thrilled that folks are actively editing. This article has needed extensive editing for sometime. I'm usually not up to revert wars and so I drop information over here so it doesn't disappear. The specific difference that I cite refers to the specific name of the building that Smith proposed for the site. Since Temple Lot doesn't recognize a President, there's a big problem and that explains why the positions are so intractable.Americasroof (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I just don't see that detail as too relevant to the article about the property of the Temple Lot. For the article on the church, sure, but why isn't it enough to just say they have stated they won't cooperate? Anyone wanting further information will go to the article about the church. Snocrates 03:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Cowdery rather than Smith had the first vision about a New Jerusalem...?

I also STRONG DISAGEE with the deletion of this:

Independence was selected as the site for the temple after Oliver Cowdery, the second elder next to Joseph Smith, had a vision in 1830 that revealed the New Jerusalem was to be built "on the borders by the Lamanites" (Native Americans). (The Independence Temple of Zion by H. Michael Marquardt - xmission.com - Retrieved January 20, 2008)

The timeline is important here as Cowdery's vision was in 1830 while the now cited Smith vision in 1831 and Cowdery was to get Smith to support the settlement. This all ties to the excitment associated with the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Americasroof (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If I removed that it was in error. I had no intent to do so. I'll review my edits and see where I messed up and restore it. Snocrates 03:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that it was deleted by an anon. I agree with you that it should not have been deleted as it seems to be the earliest seed of the idea that a temple would be in Independence. Snocrates 03:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Though it should not be implied that after Cowdery's vision the site was chosen, b/c it was not chosen until after Smith's revelations. I think that's what the anon is getting at with his deletion of this. Snocrates 03:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have mentioned it was anon. The timeline is important as Cowdery is the one who first stirred things up and was to play a role in later events at the site.Americasroof (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anon is having a hissy fit about Cowdery not having a vision about this. Since s/he seems incapable of raising this, I will: Where in the citation does it say this? I don't know that it's accurate that he actually had a vision. Snocrates 04:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not having a hissy fit, I'm editing the article with verifiable facts. I don't appreciate you using terminology like "hissy fit," you know that is disrespectful and inappropriate. I can tell that neither of you are Mormons, and certainly not Mormon historians: Oliver Cowdery merely preached the gospel in Missouri and Kansas. He did NOT claim a vision or revelation that the New Jerusalem should be established there, nor does the Marquardt article state as much. You just think it does! Look more closely at it, and then please revert away from your error. 69.152.35.54 (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol; why don't we let Americasroof respond to my question? I think he may have simply misinterpreted what the article said, and when it was quoting one of Smith's revelations, he thought it was quoting Cowdery's. It is obvious that you are not having a hissy fit: that's why you're maligning other editors and their "qualifications". You might be surprised if you knew what mine are. Snocrates 04:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This evidently is the sentence in the Marquardt article you have both misunderstood: "In a revelation originating at Fayette, New York, Oliver Cowdery, the second elder next to Joseph Smith, was called to "go unto the Lamanites [Indians] and preach" the gospel, and cause the church to be established among them." Nowhere does that article or any serious article about Mormon chuch history claim that Oliver Cowdery received a revelation about a New Jerusalem, before Joseph Smith did.

And regardless of what either of you decide, please do not flame me at my Talk Page or here. 69.152.35.54 (talk)

Lol, so instead of changing the name of "Oliver Cowdery" to "Joseph Smith", you perform wholesale reverts which end up reversing a lot of work I put in to citation management. I suggest that that is not the most productive methodology, champ. Snocrates 04:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the specific paragraph we're talking about:

In September 1830, five months after Joseph Smith, Jr. organized the restoration Church of Christ, one of the eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon, a man named Hiram Page claimed to receive revelations "concerning the upbuilding of Zion" and other matters through a certain peepstone.10 "Finding, however, that many especially the Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery were believing much in the things set forth by this stone" Joseph Smith inquired of God concerning this matter and Page was told that what had been written was not of him.11 In a revelation originating at Fayette, New York, Oliver Cowdery, the second elder next to Joseph Smith, was called to "go unto the Lamanites [Indians] and preach" the gospel, and cause the church to be established among them.12 Concerning the city called New Jerusalem they were told that "it is not revealed, and no man knoweth where the city shall be built, but it shall be given hereafter. Behold I say unto you, that it shall be on the borders by the Lamanites."13

I interpreted it to say Cowdery had the visions and jumped on the September 1830 date. I could be wrong since the graph is not clear and you might be right about the timeline with Smith. But the graph does point to an interesting facet not yet discussed as it mentions that Hiram Page received revelation about upbuilding of Zion. Page was to be among those who founded the Temple Lot denomination and thus the September 1830 with Page's name should be included. Americasroof (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I STRONGLY AGREE with Americasroof...that mention of Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery's experiences and views in 1830 are interesting and relevant...I mean, I didn't know about that angle until this 'dispute' arose here, and am intrigued by it. Still, technically the link to the Marquardt article introduces that information sufficiently. If you want a sentence or two indicating that JS's March, 1831 revelation simply was not a "bolt out of the blue," I would go along with that. 69.152.35.54 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Snocrates is right, we're "almost there" so far as improving the section in question...but we're not there yet. This is not true:

"In 1830, Joseph Smith had a vision that revealed the New Jerusalem was to be ::::built "on the borders by the Lamanites" (Native Americans).

In 1830, what happened was that Oliver Cowdery was called to go on a mission to Missouri & Kansas, amidst talk of a New Jerusalem being established, somewhere in the United States. And the "on the borders by the Lamanites" mention was not until the June, 1831 revelation (which is cited in the article). 69.152.35.54 (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Jackson County Info

I also disagree with the deletion of this:

Smith, who was in Kirtland, Ohio, mustered a band of 200 called Zion's Camp in 1834 to protect the settlement. Many members of the group suffered from an outbreak of cholera and the non-Saint attacks in Independence more vicious.

In the face of the attacks The followers were to move across the Missouri River to Clay County, Missouri where they were to retain David Rice Atchison as an attorney in settling the claims on the sell of personal property.

After abandoning Independence, Smith was to revise the City of Zion plans and send them to Kirtland, Ohio where a slightly larger temple of similar design to the one planned for Independence was built at the Kirtland Temple.

This reflects Smith's effort to defend the temple. Wikipedia currently doesn't have any articles specifically on the eviction from Jackson County. I have on my to do to write a City of Zion article but haven't quite got around to it so I'm dumping the stuff here. Smith's retaining of David Rice Atchison (who has an interesting claim of U.S. "President for a Day") to settle the Jackson County claims plays into the Mormon War timeline. The section on Kirtland being nearly identical to what was planned in Jackson County is pertinent here. Americasroof (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Uncited claims

In the church burnings/protest incidents section, these sentences have been added. They contains a lot of claimed facts, but the newspaper article that is cited in the sentence before really doesn't address any of these issues, except a church representative does say they were trying to have him deported: "A member of the LDS Church,‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  the man had in the year previous fathered a son with a female parishioner of the Temple Lot church‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  and was protesting attempts by the Temple Lot church leadership to have him incarcerated and/or deported as a result.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Later in the year, the man was deported from the United States to Central America.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› "

For these types of claims, I suggest we need to quickly get citations for them, or else they should be removed.

I realise they were earlier cited with some websites, which were removed by a bot as spam, but those aren't reliable references for claims of this nature. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Protest Incidents vs. Church burnings

Changing the subhead from "Church burnings" to "Protest incidents" is inaccurate. The various attempts to destroy the building on the lot have been with aim that if the building is destroyed it would seemingly clear the way for the New Jerseleum Temple to built thus clearing the way for the Biblical end of times. In the same manner, Temple Mount in Jeruseleum is always the target of attempts to destroy it in order to fulfill the end of the world prophecy. Likewise, I'm not real happy about not including the name of the last person who dressed up in an Indian costume and danced around building as it burned. If he had succeeded in bringing on the end of times, then we might have wanted to know his name. Americasroof (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a [response to my comment that was deleted because it was a trolling post from a jsmith sock puppet (mentioned above). I am putting a link to the post so there is a record. Americasroof (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Americasroof, I look forward to your future efforts of destroying the Temple Lot building so that you can start construction of the temple ... :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Temple Lot in Independence as first dedicated site..

I suggest that the beginning text at the start of the Temple Lot article be changed:

From:

The Temple Lot is a planned temple location in the Latter Day Saint movement in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri

To:

The Temple Lot, located in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri is the first site that was dedicated for the construction of a temple in the Latter Day Saint movement.

I suggest also the following text be added at the end of this sentence that is in the History section:

Smith was to reveal: "The temple shall be reared in this generation, for verely this generation shall not pass away until an house shalt be built unto the Lord and a cloud shall rest upon it.[1]

(Suggest that the following text be added after the above sentence)

Several temple sites were dedicated within a few years after this first site. The Kirtland Ohio Temple became the first temple in the Latter Day Saint movement to be completed and dedicated in 1836.(DavidRichardHall (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)).

Contributed by: DavidRichardHall dhall@novatek.com

New Infobox

Temple Lot
Efforts halted in 1830s
Official website
Additional information
Announced	April 1829
Groundbreaking	August 1831, by Joseph Smith (land dedicated)
Location	Independence, Missouri, U.S.
Geographic coordinates	39°5′27.1068″N 94°25′40.7604″W
Visitors' center	Yes Yes
Notes	Site Dedicated August 1, 1831 when cornerstones laid by Joseph Smith. The plat for the City of Zion (Independence, Missouri) originally called for 24 temples at the center of the city. A temple has never been built at this location because the temple's site, as designated by Joseph Smith, is occupied by a Latter Day Saint movement denomination known as the Church of Christ (Temple Lot).
()

I propose adding the infobox at right to this page. --Trödel 02:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks nice; I say yes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a nice infobox, but I removed it for two reasons: (1) This box is related to LDS temples, and the LDS church never constructed any temple on this lot, only proposed one (and, at best, laid a couple of cornerstones). There is no similar infobox at the Far West, Missouri page, which is where Far West Temple (a second temple proposed by Smith, but also never built) redirects; (2) The presence of this infobox creates a huge gap in the body of text. If you disagree vehemently with my action, please feel free to reinsert it, but I'd ask you to consider the two items I've raised here before doing so, if you would. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't object vehemently, I do wish to point out that although the template being used is used on all the LDS Temple pages and lists, this is not obvious at all from the box itself. There are NO links in the box exclusive to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And significant edits were made to {{Infobox LDS Temple}} so that it could be used on proposed temple projects and on temples that have not been dedicated by the CJC of LDS. Furthermore, there is no way that a reader could infer from the use of the box any exclusivity to CJC of LDS. Therefore I don't think that this objection to the box is valid.

However, since the {{Infobox religious building}} template that is in use on the page conveys the same information and it creates formatting issues, I am ok with its removal. --Trödel 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for misunderstanding about the box, My main objection to it was not to the box itself (which is fine!), but to the huge gap it created in the text. I appreciate your understanding about it; if you can figure out a way to get it back in without the formatting issues (I'm no good at that kind of stuff!), please by all means reinsert it! - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

I've reverted these edits, because they contained a number of problems. First, many of the claims added are quite irrelevant—it's not really important to know that the arsonist's room mate in college was Brad Pitt or Victor Callahan. Second, many of the sources cited don't say anything that is remotely connected with the incident. Third, some of the references are YouTube videos and geocities.com pages, which, even if relevant, are not reliable sources. Fourth, I'm not sure that this is considered a reliable source for the date of conviction (!). Finally, once you delete the non-reliable and non-applicable references, the information added is wholly uncited, so WP:BLP concerns come into play. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The point of view you express to justify censoring a lot of factual, cited and relevant information is just that: POV, to which you are entitled, but it is completely insufficient to justify deleting all the information due to your own political or religious beliefs. You are cyberstalking, and you are doing so anonymously and I won't waste anymore time arguing with you, because I don't need to.[5] enabled1000 (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's apparent you're more interested in theatrics than a rational discussion about this article. You haven't addressed any of my reasons for removing the information, except to say that it's "POV". It really has nothing to do with POV, but more to do with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. The comment about "cyberstalking" would be funny if it weren't a borderline WP:LEGALTHREAT. I'd be careful of doing that, since making any legal threat can get you blocked from editing WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of #URGENT RE: SECTION DELETED where a user wanted it to be explained that the arson was political protest and not vandalism (or something). I agree with you here, Good Ol'factory. Cool Hand Luke 03:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've brought this up at the admin noticeboard. I'm not sure that in isolation it warrants looking at, but judging from the history of this page and the comments left on my talk page, I thought it was worth a second look by someone. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Olfactory's comment seems well-taken. Negative material about living persons needs to be well-sourced or it will be removed. Anyone who doubts his interpretation of Wikipedia policy is invited to participate in the current thread at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above revert, since the version of that paragraph before the revert was, to put it mildly, unencylopaedic. I couldn't tell whether the intent of the paragraph was to give the arsonist a platform to air his views, or persuade the reader that he was insane. Of course, neither is appropriate for Wikipedia; our purpose is to report the viewpoints published by reliable sources.

The best way to move forward with this, in my opinion, is as follows: If any editor wants to change the article, propose a small change here, neutrally worded, and provide a reliable source that verifies the material in the proposed change. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason it is so poorly worded is because of the past conflicts and the decision by good editors to not mess with it anymore. That plus threats of violence - why waste my/our time on such nonsense. Personally, the entire section should be down to one sentence. "In xxx, an arsonist set fire to the building, in what he claimed was a political protest." --Trödel 16:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason what is so poorly worded? The section as it stands is not poorly worded. The submitted information which GoodOlfactory deleted, is that what you believe is poorly worded? You wrote "Personally, the entire section should be down to one sentence." Is that a poorly-worded personal opinion? Did you mean, "personally, [I believe] the entire section should be [further reduced/censored] down to one sentence" ? enabled1000 (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If our persistent objector would agree to leave the article alone, I would agree to such a pithy sentence. I think it became somewhat longer as other accounts repeatedly removed all mention of the incident, which prompted Snocrates to bolster the sources with more contemporaneous newspaper articles. These sources provided more detail of the event.

Would what Trödel proposes be acceptable, Rescirscir? Cool Hand Luke 16:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for asking! The short answer is no, what SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK proposes is more than acceptable, it is exactly what is called for, and I would carefully comply with that arrangement. I believe that a complex and unusual and volatile dispute can in fact be quickly and peaceably resolved if persons involved discuss and negotiate, as Wikipedia policy recommends all along. But "newcomers" keep coming in and mucking things up, making further false statements and allegations...Trodel, for instance: What's he talking about "...plus threats of violence..."? Nobody involved made any threats, legal or otherwise. When I said the conduct of editors and administrators is being monitored, I meant by other interested parties, who are either intrigued or concerned about the truth about the 1990 protest being persistently suppressed, this includes members of the Temple Lot church, and close relatives of the protester, both categories of which know that the press reports which were then plagiarized into internet reports, are false and slanderous. I just met with the daughter of Bill Sheldon, longtime church spokesman. She as well as every other sane member of the church knew and knows that the protester never threatened fellow members of the church, never disrupted meetings, was never "bodily removed" or even threatened with eviction. Never! That allegation came from a now-deceased elderly church member who evidently was showing signs of dementia or alzheimer's at the time he made that statement to the press--which, like everything else, was posted uncorroborated on a top-of-the front page report in one of the most influential newspapers in the American Midwest. She also knows that the vast majority of church members Everyone was misquoted and lied about and made to look stupid in local media, everyone in the Temple Lot church, including the protester. And then...after the trial in 1991 caused many surprising facts to emerge, the Kansas City Star post-trial report intentionally suppressed the facts, and just repeated the falsehoods which had just been disproven in a court of law! This indicates that the false and defamatory and malicious reporting is only typical of irresponsible or malicious reporting about Latter Day Saints from the beginning: Instead of interviewing, say, Joseph Smith or Parley Pratt or Wilford Woodruff or other missionaries for the early church, some newspapers would just publish outrageous false rumors, such as the the rumor that Mormons "sacrificed childen in their Temple" and so forth. This caused some Mormons to be falsely imprisoned or murdered. Let me interrupt myself to point out that I need to go to an appointment to a special library with archived documents relating to the 1990 protest. I have to 'run,' but will be happy to continue this discussion in this vein when I get back. enabled1000 (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So, based on what you've written, I'm still not clear on why a one-sentence mention as suggested by Trödel wouldn't work. The references as they stand now could be provided, and then users could seek them out and read them if they desired, but the WP article wouldn't be reproducing the information found in those sources that you find objectionable. It seems the one-liner would be exactly what you'd want, since your points above are unlikely to be found in neutral sources and would likely constitute original research that can't be included in the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

my "points" as you call them, are found in the sources acceptable to Wikipedia, in the Independence Examiner and court records and transcripts. Have you not read the material you deleted? It cites and sources what the protester said and did. The problem with the Kansas City Star and Times libel was solved by not linking to the full article, only citing the issue date and number. It's troublesome that you think Trodel's one-sentence mention would be accurate or appropriate. Readers of Wikipedia want and deserve more than an inaccurate one-liner. And for instance, it wasn't an "arsonist" who set fire to the sect's structure, it was an activist, an ordained priest, a member of the church acting in compliance with the sect's beliefs and also the First Amendment, the law of the land. The "arsonist" label came later, and mainly because gross irresponsibility by regional media outlets made a fair trial impossible. For comparison, is Bill Ayers a terrorist? His political enemies say he is, but his friends and supporters know him as a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar. How about just going through that Wikipedia article and replacing his name with "the bomber" or "the terrorist" and see what happens. And incidently, the full Kansas City Times headline for January 2, 1990 says "Man described as scholar arrested in burglary and arson." I would appreciate it if those editors would recuse themselves from this discussion who are not willing to do the research and analysis necessary to properly examine and then explain a complex, politically-volatile incident and aftermath. Please be extraordinarily careful when anonymously manipulating public characterizations of someone else (as per wp:blp) it's not fair, and it's not right. I already told you that what SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK proposes is acceptable, isn't it time to move forward? In conclusion, please don't misunderstand my tone, I appreciate the time you've so far taken to discuss things with me, and I may shortly withdraw my complaint vs. CoolHandLuke because it appears that even he will be able to help the situation instead of making it worse. Truth be known, we're all victims of false and defamatory reports published by Kansas City Star and then plagiarized by Watchman.org, Joplin Globe, and so forth. enabled1000 (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your sources that I deleted did not meet the WP standards of WP:N and WP:RS. As for terminology, the protester was convicted of arson, thus he's an "arsonist", or a "convicted arsonist", if you prefer. It's just the bare meaning of the word. I don't think the situation (as far as WP is concerned) is as complex as you are making it out to be, frankly. WP reports what the neutral and reliable sources report, full stop. You may want to review the principles of verifiability vs. truth, since I think a prime confusion here is most editors are interested in verifiability, while you seem more interested in truth. In WP—for good or for bad—verifiability prevails if there is a perceived conflict. Quite frankly, I don't really think this article would be an appropriate forum to examine the motivations of the convicted arsonist in any amount of depth. It's fine if we quote or summarise his statements quoted in the reliable sources, but we don't need an essay on his theories of whatever. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewording

Rebuilt headquarters.

On 1 January 1990, an arsonist set fire to the building damaging the upper floor, in what he claimed was a political protest. On February 1, 1990, the remainder of the building (originally built in 1905) was razed, and construction of a new headquarters began in August.

|} Above is my proposed referenced wording. --Trödel 00:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I would be satisfied with that—about the right amount of detail, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. That's very nice. Cool Hand Luke 04:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Although I won't oppose the above version, I have to say that with the above wording the word "arsonist" adds no value to the article. At best it's redundant, and at worst it may leave the reader wondering if this man committed arson at other times. I notice that two of the cited sourced describe him as a former member of the church, so perhaps that would be better. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I would support that as well. I think it would be more likely accepted by our objector. Cool Hand Luke 15:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Thanks, you're right about that. For now I'll avoid voting yea or nay on Trödel's proposal, because I'm undecided, but oddly enough, leaning towards support. I'm intrigued at the possibility that the briefest mention of the 1990 incident may in fact be the most advantageous to all. enabled1000 (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I support using "a former member" in place of "an arsonist," I thought that mentioning that he was a former member was part of the objections of someone - but my memory could be faulty on that. Because it is important to some that the act be identified as a political protest, I felt that could best be accomplished by making the person the subject of the sentence rather than the building. --Trödel 20:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Either "arsonist" or "former member" are acceptable to me, too. It's sometimes hard to know which would offend the person in question more, as Trödel points out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A comment by User:Rescirscirat 22:28, 19 November 2008 was withdrawn by Rescirscir on 11:27, 20 November 2008. I am including a link to it fo the record. Americasroof (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, "newcomer" to this thread! How come someone who didn't participate in the thread is "mucking" with it? What's your motive? enabled1000 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's generally frowned upon to delete substantial amount of comments once they appear on a talk page. You can edit them to correct grammar but to delete them wholesale is generally not considered good. I have substantial interest in this article and have written a good chunk of it because of my interst in Missouri history. Plus all of the photos except one are mine. Since I have given disclosure, given some similarities in tone and style to other edits on this article, I have to ask you, point blank, User:Rescirscir, are you the person who set fire to the building at Temple Lot in 1989/1990 or do you personally know the person who set the fire? Americasroof (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

At 19:23, 20 November 2008 in east718 in Deletion log deleted Rescirscir's response (and the edit history associated with it) and indefinitely blocked Rescirscir after the user responded in the affirmative to my question about knowing the fire starter. Rescirscir then posted a link to a picture that he said was of me and my dog and wanted me to answer whether I was alone or in a conspiracy attempting to harrass "Jordan Smith." I had nothing to do at all with deleting his post or blocking him but I am grateful that somebody was courageous enough to do it. The official reason for the was because of posting personal information about users. I suspect we will be seeing Mr. Smith here again in a new form. I am only writing this to have a record of this event. I had tried to contain myself in posting in the current topic. The church burner is a convicted arsonist and the event should not be sanitized. "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" Matthew 7:16Americasroof (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

How about "a former congregant"[6] instead of "a former member"? the protester/arsonist had not attended full services at the church for months. enabled1000 (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Alternative I think this proposal may be moving in the wrong direction, i.e. away from what is verifiable in sources and towards what editors believe to be the truth. Our standard by which content is judged is verifiability, not truth. Based on this, I'd like to suggest this: A man described as a former member set fire to the building on 1 January 1990, damaging the upper floor, in what he claimed was a political protest. It is both factual and verifiable that he was described as such. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah, that's fine. At first it seemed unnecessarily convoluted, but it's not...it's clever. enabled1000 (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Fine with me too. I'm not too worried about the precise language, as long as the material is discussed in a short paragraph or sentence and the verifiable source citations remain for readers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Implemented Since we seem to have consensus I implimented SheffieldSteel's suggestion. --Trödel 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: If you keep that wording, it should be made clearer that the arsonist was a "former member of the Temple Lot church" (otherwise it is unclear whether the fire starter was a member of Temple Lot or the LDS Church). The two churches are VERY different despite their Joseph Smith roots. Americasroof (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Rescirscir blocked

(copied from above section)

At 19:23, 20 November 2008 in east718 in Deletion log deleted Rescirscir's response (and the edit history associated with it) and indefinitely blocked Rescirscir after the user responded in the affirmative to my question about knowing the fire starter. Rescirscir then posted a link to a picture that he said was of me and my dog and wanted me to answer whether I was alone or in a conspiracy attempting to harrass "Jordan Smith." I had nothing to do at all with deleting his post or blocking him but I am grateful that somebody was courageous enough to do it. The official reason for the was because of posting personal information about users. I suspect we will be seeing Mr. Smith here again in a new form. I am only writing this to have a record of this event. I had tried to contain myself in posting in the current topic. The church burner is a convicted arsonist and the event should not be sanitized. "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" Matthew 7:16Americasroof (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So all along User:Rescirscir was the very person in question? That means the user was probably just another incarnation sockpuppet of User:Jsmith51389, User:CH 82, User:Jeh akuse, and the others? I can't say I'm terribly surprised, but it does disappoint nevertheless when things like this happen. At least the incident did lead to what I see as an improvement in the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Squatters

I just deleted a sentence describing the owners of Temple Lot that started "Some consider..." That is annonymous and really loaded POV. If you want to criticize the church do it on their pages not here. We've done a pretty good job here walking the tightrope of conflicting interests with Temple Lot. Don't inflame it. Americasroof (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree the view is inflammatory and POV, that's why I quote it from a reputable source (an investigative report in the Joplin Globe) and then provide the citation. As an aside I can inform you it is true that among Latter Day Saint Movement, there is a lot of antipathy towards the Temple Lot claim to be spiritual and literal "owner" of the Temple Lot. The Joplin Globe was doing a nice job of pointing that out, and it is notable and accurate for the Wikipedia article to mention it, IMHO. It's just amusing you thought "gaymangate" is a g*a*y magazine...I thought the same thing the first time I saw that URL! (gaymangate.com). Oh and p.s....the wiki bot is flagging this reply as potentially unconstructive...it's probably because I've used the word gay! lol, I'll add some asterisks. 70.246.73.201 (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by Who Framed Roger Rabbit

I can't support these edits for two reasons - 1) the tone is not encyclopedic. 2) the sources quoted do not support the generalization that the temple lot members persecuted those belonging to other sects in the latter day saint tradition. It seems totally plausible to me that they did, but if they did some historian should have written about this and should be able to be quoted. If no such reference exists I don't see the problem with Good Olfactory's version of the events.

If such a reference exists it would then be a useful exercise to change the tone of the language to match the rest of the article, and the reference would help us do this. I volunteer my time to clean up the language should such a reference be found. --Trödel 22:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree the tone of the language should be improved, but I don't have time to do it, that's why I suggest '"editing a new passage, not just deleting it" Anyway, there are quite a few references about how Temple Lot members typically revile and persecute those belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and revile its founder, Joseph Smith, Jr.. For instance, the church's own literature, the pamphlets written and published by different "officials" in the sect for the past 120 years are chock-full of snide remarks about Joseph Smith and "Utah Mormons." Probably more effective though is the text of the U.S. Circuit Court of Western Missouri ruling in March 1894, which decreed that the Temple Lot should be handed over to the RLDS.

"In 1887 the sole surviving sister and heir of the Cowdery children executed a quit claim deed of the Temple Lot to Bishop Blakeslee of the Reorganized Church in Iowa, and that church at once began legal proceedings to establish their title. Judge Philips, of the United States Circuit Court for the Western Division of Missouri, decided the case in March 1894, in favor the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but the United States Court of Appeals reversed this decision on the ground that the respondents had title through undisputed possession ("United States Court of Appeals Reports," Vol. XVII, p. 387). The Hedrickites in this suit were actively aided by the Utah Mormons, President Woodruff being among their witnesses..."

from "The story of the Mormons" By William Alexander Linn, published 1902, pp 338-339

I don't have a full copy of it onhand, but in his ruling, the Judge goes on and on about how strange and dishonest it seems for the Temple Lot members to frequently and publicly revile the founder of their religion, the dedicator (and original owner) of the Temple Lot, and also to disparage both "Utah Mormons" and "RLDS," not to mention every single other denomination of Mormonism and Christianity. I'll see if I can't obtain a copy of that ruling, it's in the form of a pamphlet,[7] and in it, the official Court ruling has a tone along the lines of "What the hell? Why are these clowns hating on Joseph Smith and then claiming undisputed sole ownership of the Temple Lot?" It would be nice if someone with BYU Dialogue Magazine or or any other LDS publication, official or unofficial, closely investigated the Temple Lot church....notice at their website the CCTL's official history ends with like, the year 1952....possibly because they know what a modern investigator or researcher will find. I believe it's because CCTL knows that anything they say about anything since then will be scrutinized for the first time ever, and the false statements offered by various members or leaders of the sect over the years will be quickly known to be just that. Put another way, The Temple Lot church leadership is hiding out from people like you...they don't want anyone asking good questions....they just want people to occasionally go in there, so they can briefly lecture the visitor or guest on how bad Joseph Smith and the LDS are, and then continue to "hide out" from any real inquiry. You can test this theory of mine right away, by telephoning any Temple Lot official (during the day), and chat with him, and then starting asking some pointed questions, such as: "Why do you believe Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet after he introduced the High Priesthood in June 1831 --but then you believe that the Temple Lot he dedicated in August 1831 is a very sacred piece of real estate?" The quickest way to make most people in the Temple Lot faction hate you is to indicate that you are a researcher, thinker or a questioner --or LDS. Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S: For now, I'll leave alone the disputed passage/heading ("First Arson Incident")...the passage I substitute was composed on the fly, and admittedly needs more work and citations before it is acceptable. Did you know that Joseph Smith was rumored to have established a "Mormon Arson and Destruction Company"? -- and someone (I don't know who...it wasn't me) is in the Wikipedia article about the 1838 Mormon-Missourian war...? I did some research, and haven't yet found a citation that gives that full name, but there are plenty of mentions extant about a rumored "Mormon Destruction Company" devoted to wreaking destruction of property belonging to particularly violent and abusive enemies of Latter-Day Saint men, women and children. You see, violence against wood and stone is not violence against human beings, this is something something Jewish, Christian and Mormon proponents have understood from the beginning, but something which so-called "idol-worshippers" don't seem to understand. Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I just found online that Full Text of March 1894 court ruling[8][9] against the Temple Lot faction, excerpt:

"...Who are the Respondents (Temple Lotters) and in what do they believe? Looking at their answer in this case, and their evidence, the idea occurs that in theory they are Ecclesiastical Nondescripts, and in practice "Squatter Sovereigns." They repudiate polygamy while looking to Salt Lake City for succor. They deny in their answer that this property was ever bought for the church, or impressed with a trust therefor, and yet, when their head men were on the witness stand they swore they are a- part and parcel of the Original Church, founded and inspired by Joseph Smith, "the Martyr," and that to-day they hold the property in question in trust for that church. They are commonly called "Hedrickites" because their head is Granville Hedrick, who himself was a member of Complainant organization as minister, and participated actively in its General Conference as late as 1857, receiving "the right hand of fellowship," and moving the conference to works of evangelization in his region of the country. It is inferable from the testimony in this case that they reject measurably the standard Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and according to the testimony of Respondent Hill they "repudiate the doctrine taught by the church in general after 1833, 1834, and 1835."

And also the law relating to "tithes and offerings," and the doctrine of baptism for the dead, which were taught by the Mother Church. They also seem to reject the law relating to the Presidency, and of "the Twelve Traveling High Council," and also "the Quorum of Seventy Evangelists." They are but a small band, and their seizure of the Temple Lot, and attempt thus to divert the trust, invoke the interposition of a Court of Equity to establish the trust and prevent its perversion..."

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Trodel here. Anyway, WFRR has been blocked as a fairly obvious sock of User:Jsmith 51389, who has been pursuing this and related issues surrounding the Temple Lot arson incidents for some time now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional resource

In looking around today I found this blog entry on By Common Consent written by John Hamer, who was a frequent Wikipedia contributor before being named Executive Director of the John Whitmer Historical Association, and has since made infrequent contributions. It includes some references and summary of ownership issues. --Trödel 19:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Adam-ondi-Ahman

In discussion of the Garden of Eden claims I mentioned Adam Ondi Ahman which I believe should be tied together with the Garden of Eden claims. Smith was to have said Temple Lot he proclaimed it the paradise Garden of Eden. After the Saints were evicted from Jackson County they reassembled at Adam-ondi-Ahman which was proclaimed to be where Adam was sent after being evicted from the Garden of Eden. This is a quite clear cause-effect relationship between the two.Americasroof (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, now. Check out my latest revision to the article, and tell me what you think; please also tweak or change it however you like. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As usual you're very eloquent. Thank you! Americasroof (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! And thanks for the compliment! That was very nice of you to say. Thanks also for your contribution on AoA (and your contributions to this article in general); in the end, you were right, it made for an interesting detail! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and some improvements on the Boggs piece. However I think some of the edits in an effort not to be "anti Mormon" have in fact become "anti Missouri" by explaining the Mormon War and Extermination Order only from the Mormon perspective. The Extermination Order article notes that Mormons actually first used the "extermination" term in referring to exterminating non-Mormons from their areas. Since there are two sides to the argument I have not tried to summarize it. I hate the term "infamous" in describing the order. Since you and I are the two "locals" working on this article, we should really get that "Eviction from Jackson County" article written. The seeds of Boggs hatred for the Mormons as well as the reason why the Temple Lot Church split from Smith (after Smith took up arms in Jackson County) are there. Thanks again. Americasroof (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I also agree that the emphasis upon the Mormon side of the equation leads to an unwarrented "Anti-Missouri" bias, especially when taken too far (as the Mormons often tend to do; I know, because I was one for ten years of my life, once!). In regard to the use of "infamous," I use that term because Boggs' order was indeed infamous, and I think both sides today would agree to that. Whatever Boggs had heard about the Mormons (and whether any of it was true or not), he should never have used the word "exterminate" in an official, executive order issued to the commander of state troops (or anywhere else, for that matter!). Even if the Mormons had used that particular term before him, Boggs was still the governor of one of the United States, and he should have risen above that kind of language--and that kind of attitude. Suppressing even a full-scale rebellion should never require the "extermination" of whole peoples (even if only on paper); Abraham Lincoln, for instance, never used such a term when issuing orders to suppress the rebellion of the South during the Civil War. Hence, I'll have to stand by my use of "infamous", though if you think it's still too "loaded" or not NPOV (which I could understand), I would not object to your removing it. I have to go to work now, but I just wanted to drop you a line on this, since you were so good as to drop one my way. I agree with you; the "Expulsion" article definitely needs to be written. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I agree the order should never have been placed in an official document. Seeing "infamous" in any context on any article always raises POV issues with me. I've written to quite a few prison articles (I lived in Leavenworth for a while) and I always cringe when I see the term applied to various U.S. prisons. Anyway the article on Jackson County should probably be entitled City of Zion. That would catch everything from the founding to the eviction. There's a lot of redirects now (including a redirect on Plat of Zion) to an article that is muddled. I'll start working on something in my sandbox by this weekend. Thanks again! Americasroof (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Extermination Order of Gov. Boggs

I had all day to think about it, and I decided that you were right; the "infamous" adjective really isn't all that important there, anyway, and it does create an NPOV issue. So I removed it. I'll be very interested to see what you bring out in the way of a new article on the 1833 expulsion; if you entitle it "City of Zion," I imagine it will have to cover the entire LDS experience in Independence from 1831-33, including doctrinal antecedents, early settlement, Gov. Dunklin's attempts to broker a compromise (unsuccessful), and the "mini-war" waged in the fall of '33 between Mormons and their Jackson County neighbors that ultimately led to their expulsion. You'd have to include Gilbert & Whitney and the tarring and feathering episode, and all the rest that I've half-forgotten, now. That's certainly one way to go about it; another way would be to create an article exclusively about the expulsion itself, maybe entitled "Expulsion of Latter Day Saints from Jackson County, Missouri: 1833", or something similar. I'm rather bogged down in a personal (non-Wikipedia) project right now, but I'd be glad to see what you come up with, and would be glad to help out any way that I can. Maybe helping out on it from time to time would be a good break from what I'm working on now. Anyway, thanks for sharing, and I'll look forward to seeing what you produce! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I will try to put something together relatively soon. There's always wild cards in all this.Americasroof (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Extended quote

Can someone please help me understand the purpose of the extended quote from the July 1833 edition of the Evening and Morning Star. This is too much original material and needs to be summarized or removed. --Trödel 04:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was included to underscore alleged Latter Day Saint opposition to slavery (alleged by those who expelled them from Jackson County) as a reason behind the violence that led to their expulsion. That being said, I concur that it's a bit "too much". Perhaps the quote could be greatly trimmed, or (better yet, in my opinion at least) it could be replaced altogether with a brief summary of what it says. - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The editorial was the final straw that caused Jackson County residents to push the Saints out of the county (and off Temple Lot). There has been discussion of an article on the entire Jackson County experience in City of Zion -- the name of the Independence community (which currently forwards). In any event the full text needs to go into [wiki source] and not overpower any of the articles which reference it. I've never posted to Wiki Source and am not familiar how to do it.Americasroof (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed the material altogether. I don't know how to do the Wikisource thing, either, and there was not one good reason to have this extended quote in the text itself, when we can retain it as a footnote (or the source, at least). I retained the E&MS source as a footnote, but removed the text itself. Feel free to revert or otherwise make changes if you think this was the wrong thing to do. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Editorial conduct on this page

This talk page is intended for discussion of this article only. I have removed the most recent section of this article, which contained a significant amount of non-public personal identifying information. That material may not be reinserted, and any editor who reinserts it will likely be blocked. As well, personal attacks (including calling each other cowards or criminals) will likely result in blocks. Claiming permission to include non-public personal information about a person because one is a "friend" of the subject doesn't cut it. The article is about Temple Lot, not the current political aspirations of someone who was once involved in Temple Lot.

Please do not repeat the behaviour we have seen in the last 24-48 hours. Risker (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Museum

The museum section is an advertisement. Please correct this. Otr500 (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Try this. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! - Ecjmartin (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuit, 2015

Should the following entry have been removed just now (without consensus)from the article's section entitled "Third Arson Incident" by Good Ol'factory, for the reasons he describes? It should be noted that the anonymous editor who removed this information has a conflict of interest, and is evidently inimical to "Rev. Jordan B. Smith"

Lawsuit, 2015

On August 25,2015, a "Rev. Jordan B. Smith" claiming to still be a member of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) since his baptism on January 2, 1989, filed a $1.2 million lawsuit versus the State of Missouri and the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) in the same Federal Court as the 1896 Temple Lot Case (United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri). In the text of the suit, Smith alleges Breach of Contract by the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), and violation of his First Amendment-protected right to unusual religious practices. In the filing, Smith asks the Court to "throw out" his January 1991 convictions of 2nd degree felony arson and 2nd degree felony burglary (Breaking & Entering), claiming he has never been felonious, and that his conduct on January 1, 1990 at most warranted misdemeanor charges. The case was assigned to Hon. Presiding Judge Dean Whipple.[10]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone Temple Piles (talk • contribs) 01:44, 27 August 2015‎

I agree with Good Ol'factory. I think WP:RECENTISM and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest probably apply in this case. It's just to soon to see if this lawsuit will become WP:Notable or not. However, if you can find secondary sources that talk about it, then perhaps it can meet the threshold for notability, so WP:RECENTISM wont apply.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 19:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, ARTEST4ECHO! Stone Temple Piles (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Access and status

It's clear from Google Street View that the Temple Lot is unfenced, and doesn't appear to have many signs in evidence marking it out as anything other than a lawn. It is evidently mown and maintained. Is anyone free to just walk onto it? Beorhtwulf (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have walked on it and taken photos from there. Jonathunder (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Categories

@FyzixFighter: I take your point. But why restore Category:Latter Day Saint temples if it never was a temple? Rangasyd (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair question. If we are considering the "greater Temple Lot" area, there is a RLDS/CoC temple on that land. I also think that the fact that it was dedicated for the building of a temple (and there are those in the LDS Church who believe that one will still be built there in the future), it belongs in some temple-related category. The Latter Day Saint temples category seemed like the best one in this regard. I understand that depending on how strictly we define the scope of the category, maybe there would be a more appropriate category? --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)