User talk:Gldavies

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
You can experiment in the Sandbox.
For help, see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.
Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk 06:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic world view, etc.

I think we're actually reaching agreement incrementally article by article.--John Foxe 22:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I appreciate your willingness to work with me on this stuff... thanks! gdavies 22:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon vandalism

Thanks for the heads up on User talk:204.99.118.9 - I would say the current vandalism deserves more of a warning as it isn't a personal attack like the prior vandalism here and here. If it gets worse I'd post something to StormRider or Visorstuff, as I am not on frequently right now and am restraining from imposing any blocks for a little while. --Trödel 03:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon

This is R.E.S.A., responding to your talk concerning my edit of the Mormon article. I agree that an "unbiased definition" of Christianity is necessary here; however, "one who claims to worship Christ" can hardly be considered objective. Such a definition would reduce the word "Christianity" to a hollow and useless shell of a word. Rather, we ought to use the word to apply only to those who actually are in some way disciples of the person known to the Christian world at large as "Christ". The Mormons claim to worship a man named Christ, but also claim that the teachings he left behind were largely corrupted, and that what this Christ _really_ said was substantially different (e.g. the Christ of the Christians saying that there will be no marriage in Heaven, whereas the Mormon religion teaching that Marriage is eternal). Therefore the Christ of the Mormons is a _substantially different_ person than the Christ of the Christians. For this reason, it is equivocation to call Mormons Christians. Mormons are followers of _a_ Christ, but not the same Christ as Christians. Anyway, as Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, and this is a hotly controversial topic, it's a pretty clear violation of Wikipedia's standards to just matter-of-factly say that everyone who thinks that Mormons aren't Christian are wrong and that Mormons _are_ Christian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R.E.S.A. (talk • contribs) 01:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

--RESPONSE to the example of a belief in eternal marriage as believing in a different "Christ": In the Bible there are many, many passages which compare the relationship between God and His people to a marriage. "Your Maker is your Husband," He says. (Isaiah 54:5) "I am married to you." (Jeremiah 3:14) "I will betroth you to Me forever." (Hosea 2:19) Our relationship with the Lord is to be a blessed, heavenly, eternal relationship. Would our union with God be compared to something which ends with death and has no part in heaven?

When studying the Bible, often it is just as important to recognize what the text does not say. Some have taken Jesus words to mean that when people die they become angels (this is behind the pop notion of people "getting their wings", having halos, etc.). But Jesus doesn't say that at all. What He says is with respect to "marrying" and "being given in marriage", people will be LIKE the angels. But what does this mean? New Testament scholar Ben Witherington puts it this way:
"The case put forward by the Sadducees is particularly extreme. Not only had six brothers attempted and failed to impregnate the woman in question, but she had also outlived them all and was single when she died. It is perhaps this last fact which prompts the question: Whose spouse will she be in the resurrection? ..Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms "γαμουσιν" (gamousin) and "γαμιζονται" (gamizontai) is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear..."

R.E.S.A. again. I didn't want to bring this up in the talk page about Mormonism, but you mentioned 2 Thess. 2:3 as referring to the Great Apostasy. You do realize, do you not, that this passage states that this "falling away" (as one version puts it) will occur only when the antichrist appears? And that Jesus will appear to defeat this antichrist with the glory of his second coming? I'm really interested in how you interpret this. Did someone already sit in the Temple of God, declare himself God, work miracles through the power of Satan, and get destroyed by the brightness of the coming of the Lord? If so, when and where did this happen? What about Matt. 16:18, "upon this rock I shall build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."? Doesn't that seem to indicate that the "falling away" from 2 Thess. will be less than a total apostasy of the Church? I mean, if you don't mind my asking. If this is none of my business, don't hesitate to tell me so, I'm just overly curious sometimes.R.E.S.A. 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. (New Testament | 2 Thessalonians 2:3 - 4)

   "for that day shall not come" refers to the Second Coming.  There must be a "falling away first" and "the man of sin" (Satan) be revealed before the Second Coming.  Nowhere does it say that the "falling away" occurs only when the antichrist appears.

Matt 16:18 Daniel foresaw and foretold the establishment of the kingdom of God in the latter days, never again to be destroyed nor given to other people. The church has been restored in the last days--never again to be destroyed. The gates of hell will never prevail.

Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

Partially due to your vote, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon has been selected as the Mormon collaboration of the month. I look forward to working with you on the article. uriah923^(talk) 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review : Golden plates

Golden plates has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]