Talk:Kolob/Archive 1

message: Specific to LDS Church, or Mormon belief more generally? Alai 19:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific

message: The article states: "Outside of LDS circles, it is universally agreed that 'Kolob' is an English pronunciation of the Arabic word "qalb", and is not reformed Egyptian." I find some problems with this. First, "outide of LDS circles" is a little broad. If a reference to this could be provided I would feel that it was validated, otherwise, it may be a single person's view point. 
My second concern is the reference to "reformed Eqyptian." I've never heard that term used in any context other than the Book of Mormon. Are we confusing issues here or am I uninformed?
billlund 13:24, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Our anon. editor attached no references at all to his/her relatively extensive edit.  Do any of the project's non-Mormon contributors have relevant information? or references?  I haven't heard Reformed Egyptian in regard to POGP translations either.  But I left it in, just in case my memory was faulty.  User:Authr just removed the reference to Reformed Egyptian.  It should not be replaced unless support can be found.   WBardwin 22:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is probably confusion between reformed egyption as in the BoM and the source of the PoGP. Trödel|talk 16:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: Looking back at what the anon editor added in made me cringe - they wrote: "The hypocephalus of Facsimile #2 was one of the more commonly found artifacts, as hundreds or thousands have been uncovered over the centuries. They are most commonly found with a mummy."
In my research I am only aware of a little over 80 specimins/fragments available of Hypocephali (I believe somewhere around (84-90). Hundreds of thousands may be overstating it just a little bit. Only one serious work has been done on them - and that was in the 1890s. Yes, over one century ago. Very little research has been done on them since. I'd love to read some additional research on them. -Visorstuff 23:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hundreds or thousands... definately sounded a little flaky! I made a change to reflect up to a hundred known examples, given Visorstuff's information.  That should do unless we find some more definative research.  WBardwin 00:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hundreds of Thousands?

message: Excellent edit - makes much more sense now.Visorstuff 20:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Identical characters, Exact similar, etc. 

message: *Smith has notes on the back of the hypocephalus where he uses some refrences to 'figures' that he sections the hypocephalus into. For example "figure #1" is the Kolob figure and so forth. 
*The theory that Smith got the translation from the God of Christianity and Judaism is far less likely than the idea that he made it up or got it through Arabic influences. Mormon apologists are quick to point out the connection between arabic 'qalb' and the Mormon 'kolob'. 
*Smith did not translate from Egyptian. The hypocephalus itself, after he modified it, had characters that were either reversed or made up. Even from Smith's own notes, if we apply his "translations" of some of the characters anywhere else on any other piece of papyrus, we come up with incoherent gibberish. Whereas with the established Egyptian translation methods from Champollion onwards, we can come up with coherent dialogue throughout the Egyptian scripts and artifacts. There is no way he translated it from Egyptian. Therefore you must put "he said that he translated" instead of asserting that he actually did translate. 
*Semetic and Nubian influences do not modify the language. Egyptian itself is a pictographic language, that also has syllabic symbols. Nubian language IS related to Ancient Egyptian and they share much of the same origin linguistically. Semetic and Egyptian do not. In any event, Nubian and Semetic "influences" merely become assimilated into the written language as phoenetic but the symbols are consistently (in your wording purely) egyptian. Similarly in Japanese, foreign influences become phoenetic, but the Japanese scripts remain unchanged. 
*There should be less bias. The origin of the word as Smith explains it is unsubstantiated. There should be less "critics" in the article where it is clear.
I don't have much time to respond but here are some thoughts. Your point #1 is incorrect. 
* I'm fairly certain that the Hypocephalus is pasted/glued to a seperate piece of paper - there are no modifications or corrections to the paper or hypo itself by smith - there are to Fascimile #1, but no the hypocephalus that I've seen. Facsimile #1 does have notes on the back, but that is the only one I know - not the hypo. I'll have to go back and re-look at my photographs and research notes to double check. When it was printed in the T&S, the etcher/printer/editor made some aesthetic modifications to all three facsimiles as parts were destroyed. I believe that is what you are referring to whan you discuss modifications? Those were not likely done by Smith, but were likely approved by Smith for publication (not for nessesarily for accuracy). I do know it is quite different than a number of similar hypos that have a four headed god. This one, and others, have a two headed god. Unsure on why. There is a possibility of religious belief connotation as it's influences may have come from a earlier time period, or that it deals directly with the orgin of the deceased. The four headed god typically is believed to repressent the four quarters fo the earth, where the two headed god is a mystery. The symoblism of the four was from a later time, so it is possible that the earlier meaning of the two-headed god is lost in antiquity. It could also represent life and death, etc. Smith's hypo is missing some text that appears in other under-the-head documents, that is typically written in a more vulgar (the informal egyptian) writing or later in greek (hence the abraham connection mentioned above). 
* Point two - compeltely agree from a naturalistic point of view. However, we must add what he claimed, since this the word's origin begins with Smith. This also, as you've inferred above, has religous implications, so it should be discussed as well. If we base only on scaps of papyri and the words appearing in the Book of abraham and facsimile, then there would be no need for this article. There is no evidence outside of the Mormon world view and minor outside evidences to support anything outside of a Mormonsim view. 
* You wrote" Even from Smith's own notes, if we apply his "translations" of some of the characters anywhere else on any other piece of papyrus, we come up with incoherent gibberish" There are NO notes on his translation of the hypocephalus. There were none made. The "notes" you are probably referring to are the "grammar" and "alphabet" notes that are attributed to Smith, but created by WW Phelps (or at least in his handwriting), which have nothing to do with the hypocephalus. Of course if you have notes of this they'd be gibberish, as they wouldn't have been created by Smith - but they'd be a forgery. There were none created on this particular portions of the papyrus. 
* Point four. Okay. Makes sense in the Hieratic. Point? As for the heiroglyphic/picture symbols - may be too absolute of a statement and very problematic - for example there is no standard translation or corresponding root/syllable for a picture of a two-headed god or four-headed god. 
* Point five - agree. This article is about the word. This is not an article about apologists belief. I believe the well-meaning editor added it in as a proof point and an interesting parallel. Agree context should change. -Visorstuff 19:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "I am Djabty in the house of Benben in Heliopolis, so exalted and glorious. [I am] copulating bull without equal. [I am] that mighty god in the house of Benben in Heliopolis ... that mighty god..." 
Copulating bull? Makes no sense. I know, I'm probably wrong. Every dead Egyptian guy wanted to be remmeberd as "a copulating bull" rather than saying "I was blessed with a lot of posterity and may my seed-line live forever (may I be a virile bull without equal)" More on the symbology of a Bull/cow at another time...
I do not claim that Smith did a traditional "translation" of the Book of Abraham as we would expect (a word for word). I do claim that smith claimed to received the Book of Abraham by revelation or "as it was given" to him. I also claim that "translation" today means something different in the 1830s and in Mormonism than "translation" does in 2005. We think of a direct translation from ancient documents. Remember, Smith also did a translation of the bible (Joseph Smith Translation that didn't have any ancient documents associated iwth it. Rather a more appropriate 2005 term would be "rendering." What Smith shared was what he felt was God's "rendering" of the Bible, and of these egyptian documents. 
The anon editor wrote "Figure 1 in the Fascimilie is referenced directly from the pictograph in the center, and has none of the hieroglyphs anywhere in the  papyrus as a reference."
Can the anon please explain this - it makes no sense. 
-Visorstuff 23:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response 

message: The point (#2) of contention here is that the word's origin did not begin with Smith, but was likely used by smith from an earlier obscure origin. As you acknowledged there are other papyrii that contain, not just similar, but the same content, the same hieroglyphs, and the same ideas (The Book of the Dead). Therefore there is ample opportunity to compare what we have from Smith, (the fascimile, the hypocephalus, and the translations) with the other Book of the Dead papyrii also found in the same manner.
:Let me be very clear about this. No two hypocephali are the same. No two drawings are the same. Some words/heiroglyphics are the same, but they are not in the same order - that is like comparing this page to Polygamy - many of the same words are used, but in different a order. Yes, there are many cases where a hieroglyphic is used in multiple places, but a completely different meaning and context. A hypocephalus was very very very very individualized, just as is teh book of the dead. (In fact, it is misleading to say THE book of the dead (although it is the correct title), rather, more properly it should read "A book for THIS dead [individual]" You are more than welcome to compare similar hypos - there are about 15-18 I know of that follow a similar format. The others are typically much smaller with less information. Have you even seen one?''
The order of the words are clear enough that if one can read "The Book of the Dead" from one hypocephalus, and then go to another and read the same content and get the same idea, then the fact is undeniable. The two in comparision share more alike than different. You cannot respond that there is not enough similarity in the characters to draw a reasonable conclusion about how Smith tried to translate it. Smith was clear, he was trying to translate the letters (not the pictographs). I have seen three at the museum. In all three, they share identical characters that make it obvious (why are we even debating this obviousness) that one can reliably translate the language into coherent ideas from one, and use the same technique to translate reliable ideas from another, and the third, and the 15-18 you have. That is what "translating" means. Smith's method does not work. It is not reliable. it is amateurish, and is "justified" by using god as an excuse. That aspect of this article is being avoided, perhaps because some would not like to admit this.
The notes from the fascimilie #2 are on the back, they refer to the content on the front. In addition, the quote from Smith himself indicates he was translating the language, not interpreting the pictures into his Book of Abraham. What I am referring to as gibberish is not just the notes, but the actual end result as well. As we can clearly see on the fascimile, there are hieroglyphs that are copied (corresponding to the NON-restored, non-damaged portions) from the hypocephalus identically. They are then translated by Smith. The forgery is not attributed to who, but attributed to how. It would be a forgery to claim to make a translation of an ancient document that is accurate, but use inaccurate restoration (then trying to translate that), and come up with an inaccurate outcome. 
:See below. I knew this sounded fishy and referenced it above. The original Hypocephalus is missing from the Church's collection. Only copies of it exist. The "damaged" portions are from damaged portions of the copies. Again, I'd love to see your reference of this claim, as it is incorrect. If you think there was an inaccurate "restoral" of photographs, how did Smith come up with the right figure on the boat? I believe that the Hypo was not damaged when Smith had it (as evidenced by Josiah Quincy's comments), but the copy mss. was obviously damaged later None of Smith's notes. See below for proof by the way, the grammar committee was Warren Parish, WW Phelps and O. Cowdery). 
You answer your own question. The original was not damaged (and I would agree with that). Smith remembered the picture of horus on the boat, but its a lot harder to remember each one of those little characters. In addition, we know that Smith had access to other Egyptian artifacts and interacted with other Egyptian treasure seekers. It is extremely likely that he was able from such a variety of opportunities to get the assistance on that. I do not understand how you can just turn a blind eye to these things. It seems you are drawn to believe that Smith didn't know or have the opportunity to find out things, and god must have told him (Even though what he does without the possibility of someone aiding him, always comes out wrong.)
Point 4 - The picture cannot be translated. It's a picture. No one (except Smith) has tried to translate the four-headed god. We have attempted to identify it and interpret it's meaning in the context of what is translated. But that picture does not become part of written Egyptian script or language. 
:I disagree, as would most archeaologists - modern egyptology points to pictographs altering the meaning of the text - a simple example is a pictograph of a man next to a phrase could turn the phrase into a name of the individual, rather than just a phrase. The phrase may make sense without the pictorgraph, but in the context of the pictorgraph, it becomes multi-dimensional. Second, the four headed god is translatable. It has a meaning and a context. It definitely affects the script. 
The pictographs can alter the meaning of the text, but the pictographs themselves do not translate into words. So you may disagree, but Egyptologists will agree with me. We are not trying to read Smith's "altered meaning of the text" Smith is ignoring the text itself, interpreting the pictographs, and coming up with a false interpretation, one that is totally out of touch with the text itself. You mentioned "multi-dimentional", as a way of justifying how Smith could have said ANYTHING, and that could be somehow reinterpreted to find parallels to what was actually written. That's called "representationalism". The four headed god is not translatable. It is a pictograph. It's interpretable (why is it there, what could it mean). But I cannot use that four headed god in a sentance, or in any hieroglyphic idea in a script form. (except of course to adhoc it in, like putting a picture of a flame in a sentance to convey the message of a fire.) 
Point 5. The word Kolob is being "translated" from what? The picture (which would be a forged translation) or any of the hieroglyphs. Smith may have interpreted the picture to be "kolob" a semetic root, but it's absurd to try to find some kind of relationship, parallel, or any connection to Smith's own interpretation of a non-semetic artifact, to a semetic word. Since it's clear that the picture is not something that can be translated, how can we rationally discuss the semetic root possibilities of something that's not a word. 
:See my comment above about "translated" versus "rendering." You are using translated as a much different term that Smith was. See my comments above about the picture being "translated." It defintely represents something - in order to affect the context. However, I agree with portions of your statement as "translating the word Kolob" from this document is a stretch for me at this time. 
Your comment above did not address my rebuttal to point #5. Smith described very clearly what he meant by "translated". In fact, he changed his own book "The Book of Mormon" from calling himself the "author" to calling himself the "translator". The statement in the article that we discuss, Smith clearly explains how he is "translating" and what it means. And how he describes it is consistent with how we understand "translating" now. Translating "kolob, signifying the star closest to the celestial" is stretching, its totally breaking reality. What bothers me though, is that you say "at this time". It seems to me that you are compelled to find a way to "interpret" validity later, even though we both know that is logically impossible. So I am not comfortable with this time, or next time being a factor in this discussion. IT's been 140 years of people analyzing what Smith did. The extreme reinterpretation of why he did it is beyond sense. It is not something you can teach anyone to learn from, it is not a reliable way to study Christianity, and most importantly, the motivation to do it helped encourage prejudice and racism. This online encyclopedia is not here to promote theories to support or repudiate or rewrite history. This is not an article about revisionism. I would like for you to not try to turn this into that kind of thing.
Next, you mentioned that I "cannot compare any two hypocephali and think they are supposed to be the same." That is true, but nowhere in the edits have I tried to do that. I know they are not the same, but they share the same content. It is beyond arguement that many of the hypocephali are variations of the Book of the Dead. Therefore you will find identical phrases, and messages among them. Even in the Fascimile (which we agree Smith did at least copy, write, create, whatever), you can read "book of the dead" in Egyptian from what he copied. 
:You have done this comparison. You've said the hieroglyphics were similar and deomnstrated that smith's corrections/modifications were incorrect to demonstrate tehy are forgeries. You cannot say they are forgeries unless you've seen the documents in an undamaged state or are comparing to others you think this particular one should be modeled after. That is a comparison. The content of a hypocephalus is a "cheat sheet" to guide the deceased past the different guards and gods in the underworld; to give the deceased mobility in the afterlife. I agree with your assessment of the correspondence with the book of the dead. But even these books are individualized. Smith had dozens of docuemnts, at the time he translated, we only have a few surviving ones left - We have no idea what was in the others, but that they are missing is apparent. 
And the crux of the matter is, there is no way that any of those documents had anything to do with Abraham, Yahweh, Black, Egyptian, or any other people being denied priesthood in Jewish or Christian congregations, or any other Judeo-Christian issues. The only content that creates a relationship is the content that Smith either wrote, or rewrote, or made up. None of the original information lends an iota of credence to his interpretations. I am in no way trying to prove the hypocephali are identical copies, or anything like that. I am showing you that all of the evidence we have follows a cultural picture, and the only inconsistencies are in Smith's own interpretations. To excuse that because Smith somehow made a few revisions, or restorations that may be accurate to the original content... that is meaningless. The content itself had ideas, and those ideas are in no way shape or form related to Smith's interpretations. (outside of a general spirituality, the existence of a diety or dieties, and other sweeping generalizations) Anyone with some intelligence, knowing where they came from (inside a mummified coffin) could interpret that there is some spiritual significance, as just about every culture in the world relates death with afterlife.
Smith had access to more than one hypocephalus, and since you consider other possibilities,  its also very possible that the missing parts were not missing when Smith received them. It's also very possible that Smith did not use one hypocephalus for his fascimile. In the manner of considering possibilities, where there are unknowns, it seems that the unknown factors that support Smith are given more weight than those that discredit him, even though there are stronger inconsistencies with those possibilities that support Smith. 
:I do not claim he had access to more than one, and there is simply no evidence supporting that claim. It may be true. It may not. It IS however pure speculation and wikipedia is not a place for primary research. I've been very careful to throw out any non-evidence and speculation from both sides - which is why I've disliked the Qlb entry from teh beginning, however, there is support for it outside of the docuements themself. I agree that SOMEONE COULD have shared the word with SMith, but it wouldn't have been Chandler. I've tried to be consistent in saying we don't know certain things - see my statements above. The above is pure speculation. 
I claim that he had access to more than one. We know he did, Fascimilie #1 and #3 are evidentary to that. You are operating as if he did not have access, and then drawing conclusions on that small theory. Smith, again, in his own words exclaims how he "translates" from one to another. For example, there is no evidence that Chandler didn't share the word with Smith, there is no evidence that Chandler died before communicating it to him. 
Copulating bull. The translation is based on the words. The word "copulating" could be replaced with "virile" as both convey the same meaning, sexual virility.
:yup. Zactly my point. Culturally it is a great thing for a man to claim - this theme comes out again in Gnostic texts - the virile bull, the continuation of progeny. 
The hypocephalus is not a gnostic, christian, or jewish artifact. And by the way you are mentioning things yet showing nothing to support it. I do not know of Gnostic texts mentioning virile bulls as their analogy to virility. 
Finally in regards to what Smith claimed. I added the content of representationalism as an explanation of how people can support Smith's own interpretations. I do not agree with them, nor the method. As Wikipedia is more about objective study, i do not find it objective to seriously consider a divine influence when that creates more inconsistencies than the non-divine. If Smith was told that everything orbits the earth, and we find out later that he is just flat out wrong. It makes no sense to speak about Smith's interpretation of reality by trying to create a "Smith-oriented" frame of reference. To support a one-sided perspective is not in anyway scholarly and is useless in teaching others. Unfortunately even given a little leeway, Smith's own words make it impossible. He said he was translating, not "interpreting", not "rendering". Smith himself made it clear time after time, from going letter by letter, symbol by symbol.
:Agree that both sides should be presented, but not by ill-intentioned amatuers such as the sites you reference. I've no problem giving the direct translation - see above - of the heiratic of the hypo - let is stand for what it is worth. 
The sites that support Smith are far more amateurish in their approach. What do you see as evidentary in them? They are longer? That's not an indicator of professionalism. 
:Again, I disagree that we was going letter by letter. His statements (outside of the history of the church grammar committee statement) was about receiving the book of Abraham by revelation. His "translation" of the book of Abraham and his "translation" of the bible and his "translation" of the Book of Mormon have to be viewed in the same context. The word "translation" was not used in the same context as we use it today. 
And that is where you miss the point. Smith himself contradicted himself. He changed his own position, and you (I believe you are biased or Mormon) are trying as hard as you can to synergize his comments so that there are no inconsistencies. If Smith says he did "A" and then Smith said that he "never did A", you try to interpret that to mean that somehow he did AND did not do "A", yet you never consider the possibility that Smith simply lied. Smith says that he translated, then he says he was given divine interpretation. His work in any event reveals itself to be flawed to the point of randomness. He cleary described that he was translating, not "awaiting revelation". Later on, he says that he was awaiting revelation. You can't have both. He either lied in the first place, or lied afterwards. 
:In any case, this has NOTHING to do with the word Kolob, the article at hand. -Visorstuff 01:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response rebuttal 

message: I have not even read the reply (or replies) to my most recent previous post,but i saw the article, and I am ok with the biased slant in favor or Mormonism, because the contradictions are also there, but i am very much against the use of "critics" over and over throughout the article. 
"Critics" implies a non-substantiated position. Translating a language into a intelligible interpretation is not "critical" but neutral. Please reword it so you do not push a position that a non-substantiated position (i.e. critics) is being pushed against an established and reliable position, since the Mormon Kolob interpretation of the papyrus is not established, and not reliable.
::Perhaps I am misinformed.  It is my understanding that "Kolob" is a strictly Mormon word.  In that context, I have a hard time seeing how anybody not connected with Mormonism could have any opinion or experience with the word.  The recent edits say that there are people with study experience and knowledge about the word Kolob who are not connected with Mormonism.  Is this possible?  Regarding the word "critics", it is an acceptable Wikipedia practice to attribute beliefs and perspectives using that word.  At the same time, I think perhaps I understand the reasoning behind your actions.  Perhaps we can find a better way to word these things.  I don't think we're there yet.  I suggest you and VS keep at this using perhaps few talk page words until you strike a happy medium.  Perhaps we can all continue to edit the article, avoiding outright reverts, until the result is better. Tom Haws 16:04, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
:I'm slammed today and tomorrow - won't have time to do much - critics is standard on wikipedia - of theories, you have proponents and critics of every theory from gravity to evolution creationism to Q document. Nothing strange about the word - especially when referring to people discussing the word Kolob. They either believe it or they don't as this is a faith-based topic. I've read no scholar comment about Kolob outside of Mormonism, so I'd be interested in documentation on the comment from the article on the following statements:
*Most Egyptian language scholars (who are neither critical nor interested in Mormon theology)... (Note: I am unaware of such a study from "disinterested" parties - even bishop spaulding's book noting six "objective" scholars included two of his subordinates, two known anti-mormons, one egyptologist who was athiest and thought that egyptians were as well (kinda funny that egyptian religous study is a post-1945 field of study) and one self-proclaimed egyptologist that was quoted heavily in the mass media, but was not a professor, never went on a dig and was never referenced by any other academian. But spaulding's work is the basis of the anti-Mormon sites you get your information from). I'm sorry I need a source for this edit- but don't think you can provide one. 
*All of these contentions regarding Kolob has exposed Mormonism to a new scrutiny that has caused supporters of Smith to rely on a different interpretation of faith than Christians, although to a non-christian, this would be difficult to discern without clear conversation.
*The use of Kolob in an Egyptian papyrus as symbolism of God of Christianity has furthered divisions between Mormons and Christians, and has actually created a new theory of connecting Mormonism to Islam, as both share many other similarities.
:I also find it contradictory that you rely on "scholarly" sources (that you do not identify) but then write: "In Christianity, this would be considered blind faith in a man's interpretation, and not faith in a reliable and consistent God." Aren't you giving "blind faith" on man's interpretation by believing in unnamed "scholars" statements? 
:If you look back at the first conference about Hypocephalus in 1884, the examined the 30 (then) available hypos (now there are about 100 - all dealing with the same family). They determined that they were astrological documents related to burial. Yes, times have changed and theories have been modified, but that is still one of the leading theories - consistent with the book of the dead. Smith did not offer a translation of the facsimilies - he offered a interpretation of some of the symbols on the pictographs known as the facsimilies. But yet, no two egyptologists offer the same interpretations either. For example, the couch scene, better known as facsimile 1, most antis say it is Annubis preparing someone for death, but scholars do not agree. Most say it is a priest of that particular god, but that is where the similarities end. Some say he is resurrecting the individual, some say he is sacrificing him, some say there is a struggle, some say he is preparing for burial, some say performing a religious rite, some say it is a medical procedure - that could be related to death. Notice on similar ones, the movement of the "deceased" or the individual Smith called "abraham" has movement. the other couple that exist that are similar, there is no movement, or movement to suggest other activities - the differences between them have lead to further study and a lack of a definitive answer. Since Egyptian is a synthetic language (where a sybmol is usually not translated into one word, but a phrase or a thought), even the hieroglyphic interpreatations theories have changed ove rthe past 100 years. Heiratic is much more reliable, but there are a number of changes in the past 30 years there too. 
:The problem with your edits is that you insist on forcing a showdown to demand a once and for all official statemement that will be forever without dispute or discussion. Egyptologists would disagree with this - as their findings and new theories (which are heatly debated if you've ever attended a symposium on Egypt - which I'm sure you have since you are knowledgeable on this matter) are put forth to foster continued discussions, not to settle an issue. The purpose of theories are not to put forth a final statement, which you think you have, but to put forth an idea or model that fits a situation, to see if it can be applied in other situations and then to question and examine that theory. 
:This is why the field of egyptology is growing so much in the past 80 years. If there were definite answers then we've just have heiroglyph translators and archeaologiest rather tahn a whole field of study called egyptology to try to figure it out. I on the other hand have repeately stated that there is too much we do not know about the topci and this article is way too long on the available data. Try to use a bit of current topic understanding in your research, rather than relying on 80 year old "objective research" from anti-mormons. 
:I look forward to your response and references/sources. -Visorstuff 19:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take "critics" out