Talk:Kirtland Safety Society

message: I do not have time right now to find them, but there need to be better balances of references here.  For example, most of the references are from BYU studies.  This could be construed as bias toward the LDS position.  Also, the Tanner reference is laughable as they have not been a part of serious discussion for many years and have no credibility scholarly.  I will try and find more on this subject soon.  E-mail if you have a comment as I might forget (new user and all).
:Not sure of your email address, however, completely agree if you can add in some additional references. Although the Tanners research is not current, it is farther ahead in my opinion than most other critical research - simply there is a lack of real research on the matter by non-LDS scholars or church critics that is reliable and credible. And as expected D.M. Quinn draws too many conclusions in his treatment of the matter. It seems that the Tanners put forth the known and verifiable facts and then draw conclusions, whereas most others draw conclusions along the way to support their view points. In saying this, I'm not saying that their research is credible or unbiased, but they at least attempt to show a neutral stance to begina foundation... -Visorstuff 18:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanner book reference 

message: Just as had been predicted to me the personal attacks have begun. The hilarious part is that it was from somebody who brags about having more than 10,000 WP edits on his home page. I will not be bullied away from the mormon articles; in fact, this will strengthen my resolve. The  tags have been up long enough for the people who made the statements to cite their sources. Duke53 | Talk 04:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please quote the alleged personal attack, as the discussion above merely points out that unless you understand what a reliable source is, how can one ever provide the citation that you request. You have claimed that the sources in the article are not reliable. So lets address that issue first. Why should anyone go to the effort to provide a specific page number for a source you deem unreliable?? it is wasted effort. If; however, the referenced articles are reliable sources, then it will be a fruitful effort to identify the exact page number. --Trödel 14:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duke53, you still have not answered my basic question. There are many errors in Brittanica articles (one study said that Wikipedia had nearly 4 errors per article, while Britannica had about 3 per page ). How you verify the accuracy of Encylopedia Britannica articles? -Visorstuff 14:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attacks

message: Speaking of accusations -- here is one directed at me.  Anyone else see that I've done anything resembling a personal attack? Duke53 -- you even have a template to respond?  Sounds like you expect to be attacked on a regular basis?  My response is found below.  I will restore the material in question until regular editors all have a chance to respond.  This is editorial courtesy, in my opinion.  WBardwin 19:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.  Duke53 | Talk 04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What personal attack?  I simply said that it was your opinion that enough time had elapsed to respond to the citation notice.  I disagree and believe that editorial courtesy allows time for all editors to see posted concerns, research information, and respond.  If you choose to cut that time short, editors should revert/restore material for others to review.  The imposition of any time limit on responses to templates and notices on Wikipedia is generally a matter of personal opinion and impatience.  So - after observing your comments and edits on a number of pages on my watchlist - I would encourage you to be more patient with other editor's time constraints.  Hope to see constructive work.  Best wishes.  WBardwin 19:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, the value paragraph as it currently reads meets wikipedia citation standards just fine. -Visorstuff 20:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Under what criteria? Someone made an uncited claim; now prove it. Duke53 | Talk 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "now prove it." Hahaha ROFL hahaha. "Proving" is elusive. "Underdetermination of theories" applies to history as much as it does to science. B|Talk 23:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: <I>"Academic Mormon studies have been in large part ignored except by, surprise, Mormons".</I>
 Perhaps that is a result of the following exchange by your 'prophet':
*"Larry King:<B> Are people ever thrown out of your church?</B>
*Gordon B. Hinckley: <B>Yes.</B>
*Larry King:<B> For?</B>
*Gordon B. Hinckley:<B> Doing what they shouldn't do, preaching false doctrine, <I><U>speaking out publicly</U>. They can carry all the opinion they wish within their heads, so to speak, but if they begin to try to persuade others, then they may be called in to a disciplinary council</I>."</B>
When true Mormons aren't allowed by the church to state anything else publically it strengthens the idea that they are just spewing church propoganda.
<I>"Wikipedia is not the arbiter of truth and never will be, but <B>it still has <U>some</U> good reliable content</B>.</I> And I suppose that's why we are all here, to sort <I>"some good"</I> content from the crap that is sometimes written as 'fact'. Duke53 | Talk 02:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attacks

message: The current structure of the article is interesting. Normally, an article about a bank would begin with its formation, proceed on to its operations and involvement in the community and, if it ended, how it ended. Instead of doing that, this article begins with apologetics for the failure of the anti-bank. Virtually the entire article is one long list of excuses for the anti-bank's failures, blaming virtually everything and everyone except Joseph Smith, the founder. Towards the end, buried in a paragraph, are some references to some prophecies that Joseph Smith had regarding the bank's formation; why aren't these at the beginning, where they make both chronological and historical sense? Pooua 18:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you show me another WP article about a failed bank that sets this same precedence? In looking at Enron this article follows the same general outline. Same with Savings_and_loan_scandal. Federal_Home_Loan_Bank follows a reverse outline to what you suggest. -Visorstuff 20:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, by the time of the kirtland safety society, the concept of a Mormon's promised land from Kirtland west to the pacific ocean (actually it was beginning in Jackson County Missouri and including all of north and south america) was still a relaltively new concept, and not understood like you mention above. you misunderstand my point in engaging you on these talk pages. I'm not disagreeing with your summations about the KSS failing, nor that it wasn't a good idea, i'm disagreeing with how you are engaging with others on these talk pages, and generally how you are making or including judgements about Mormons of the time and today. I think adding in that many participated in the KSS becuase it was church-run and Smith said to is a great addition. Add it in and cite it. -Visorstuff 15:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formation of the Bank

message: The first link appears to be broken. 68.116.112.237 (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First link. 

message: Okay. I am pretty fed up with anonymous editors who keep reverting the name of the Church in this article without explanation. Before the 1838 revelation naming the Church (and there are disputes among Latter Day sects about how that name is written), the Church established by Joseph Smith had many names, including The Church of Christ and The Church of the Latter-day Saints. That is why it appears this way in this article. And I've had just about enough of anonymous editors who keep changing it to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" when that is inaccurate. So I would like to request that this page be protected, and further that the editors who keep changing this be blocked. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name of the Church in this article. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Kirtland Safety Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040421030902/http://www.aros.net:80/~wenglund/chapt35.htm to http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/chapt35.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified