Jump to content

Talk:Kolob

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Chopping of FairMormon mention

[edit]

I chopped this line, but it was reverted by GSwarthout. 

FairMormon, a Mormon apologist site, details various rebuttals and explanations for the differences.[50][51]

The reason for reverting was given as: "Presenting both sides is an admirable goal and reasons given for removal are not convincing." Firstly, "presenting both sides" is indeed an admirable goal but this is not wikipedia policy. "Both sides" are only mentioned if both sides conform to WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE and do not violate WP:UNDUE. Googling FairMormon every hits it from the FairMormon organisation itself. To be considered a reliable source, we generally need 3rd parties that mention it. Please provide some evidence that this is a reliable source.

But my main problem with the text is that is says nothing. We can assume that apologists for every religion will disagree with people to say there cosmology is false. For this text to be encyclopediac, first we need to ensure it is a reliable source. If it is, we need to detail some of their rebutalls and explanations in the article, not just say that they exist. Ashmoo (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. See WP:GHITS
  2. Try something that filters out hits on the orgs own websites (fairmormon.org and fairlds.org), something like this: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=-site:fairmormon.org+-site:fairlds.org+FairMormon
  3. FairMormon is notable enough to have a WP article.
Thanks-- 155.95.90.245 (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my concerns. But I'm not questioning the notability of this article but the reliability of this source. I admit the 'google hits' thing should count as an argument. I just used it as a general illustration. If you have evidence that this is a reliable source, please provide it. (Wikipedia itself can't be used as source according to its own rules).
But even we prove it is a reliable source, my second problem should also be addressed. Ashmoo (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This page is clearly either made by anti-mormons or complete idiots.
So many simple things just convoluted and stupefied.
A Person using symbolism, doesn't equate to what is used being the actual thing symbolised.
The term planet originally meant a body in the heavens(space). Stars have always been called planets or planetars even since I was a kid 40+ years ago.
Kid should have tried looking for the actual roots of the word, instead of some new age google definition.
By the way I am not a member of that church, but I do have some family who are, and are good honest people.
I am sure if they somehow got offended, it wouldn't be out of disagreement or dislike, but purely the wishy-washy, poorly written, misrepresentation of their religion.
As for me. I find it offensive purely because it is these kind of convoluted nonsensical lies that get people asking me if members of my family in that church worship aliens or other weird crap which even most 2 years olds wouldn't be dumb enough to ask.
Guess they have to have no idea, because they think that if they read 1 passage from a book it is enough to magically brainwash. Just as stupid.
Kids too busy getting taught about politics and socialism instead learning common sense and how to research properly. You don't have to agree, you don't have to read their magical brainwashing scriptures, but you don't have to write bullcrap comments either.
What a joke. 2001:8003:2056:BC01:E580:2AB:4604:B73 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kolob. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Vaughan Williams and the English hymnal

[edit]

This mention under "popular culture" is misleading. It gives the impression that VW's work was somehow related to the LDS song, rather than the common folk tune which preexisted the LDS hymn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.32.92 (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to ask the same thing.
Not really my business, though it is all grandly lunatic --- but I immediately doubted if Williams had any knowledge of the Saints, let alone interest. in them.
Of course by now he has probably been post-baptised... Claverhouse (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kolob. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

== Book of Abraham - translated - when? ==

from the intro : The Book of Abraham is traditionally held by several Latter Day Saint denominations as having been translated from an Egyptian papyrus scroll by Joseph Smith.

translated when? do Mormons have a whole nother story about the provenance of the text? Does Joseph Smith travel through time? I just want to be able ensure that the intro of this article is clear about other known facts about the origin of the book of Abraham & make it clear if Mormons have a different version of that text, or think the text only dates back to the mid 19th century, or what the deal is.

anyone with info, please comment. this intro needs to be cleaned up. skakEL 18:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind, my bad. skakEL 18:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kolob&oldid=1208016003"