Talk:Master Mahan

Some thoughts to consider

This is not a common subject within Mormonism; more like a tidbit of knowledge. Hugh Nibley has some discussions that appear to be referred to in the article:

"So the arrangements are all made here. Notice, we are told back here in verse 23, "thou shalt rule over him." Cain rules over Satan for this life, not the other way around. And sure enough, in verse 30 here, "And Satan sware unto Cain that he would do according to his commands…." So Satan swears to obey Cain here, to do anything Cain wants. Do anything you want: That's the famous pact with the devil. You can have it all, and I will see that you get it. And I'll tell you how to get now, he says. "And all these things were done in secret." Well, you can be sure of that. "And Cain said: Truly I am Mahan, the master of this great secret,…" This is a very interesting etymology here. The word secret is sirra in Arabic; the eighth form of the verb, mustirra, means "to hold a secret, to keep a secret." It's the same as the Greek word sathra for secret. The Egyptian word is seshet; meseshet is "to hold a secret." Sether is the Hebrew word for keeping a secret (the master of the secret). So this word master may not be our word master at all, but master means "keeper of secret," and Mahan means "great." In any language maha means "great." In Arabic, English, Greek, Sanscrit, or anything maha means "great." Words like magnus, mighty, might, many, maharaja; anything that's big is ma. So this could mean Master Mahan, the "great secret keeper." (It could be; this is just a suggestion here.) So he got the master's degree, the master of this great secret. This was the secret: converting life into property. You can do it. All great acquisitions of property and gain are based on the taking of life, human and other life. You can't escape it. "Wherefore Cain was called Master Mahan, and he gloried in his wickedness" (verse 31). As I say, all great enterprises are going to put life at risk and take it.

He goes into the field and talks to his brother Abel. They had talked often about this. "And it came to pass that while they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." The usual story is that they were a couple of adolescents, and one in a fit of pique bashed the other over the head (that's the conventional story). They debate among the fathers of the church. Some say they were something like 13 and 15 years old. Others say 20 and 25. Here they were not only grown men, but Cain knew exactly what he was doing. He had been plotting and scheming all along. We are told in verse 50 of this chapter that Cain slew his brother Abel for the sake of getting gain. In the Doctrine and Covenants we are told that he slew him by a conspiracy. He had been conspiring and planning it for a long time. It was deception. He overwhelmed him here. And he was not ashamed at all. "And Cain gloried in that which he had done, saying: I am free; surely the flocks of my brother falleth into my hands." Ancient Documents and the Pearl of Great Price: p. 12 --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are other thoughts to consider: Natural Man or Mahan, Man-date, Man-ipulate, If you break the word mandate down, The Man sets the date...& you have to get things done at the appointed time or else.

Pretty much from all my studying I have found that the Natural Man is the spirit of Domination or Babylon which is symbolized with a Phalus/Penis/Sword/Tower/Pyramid...where one glorifies/exalts himself ::with the spoils of war/sacrifice/rape rather than through farming (which Cain supposedly no longer practiced).

I think if we are going to add anything to the article Master Mahan must be catagorized along with Lucifer/Azazel/Prometheus in order to get a sense of what Cain was glorifying in. So reveal the method in order to give context to his character which is ursurper, thief, liar, murderer, etc.

Loneindividual (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Joe Smith and Masons?

er.... why would he hate masons, he was a mason and a lot of temple ceremonies are 'inspired' by masons. also... SOURCES?Sanitycult (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No one has ever claimed he "hated" Masons. What has been shown is that in the 1830s in New York state there was a fairly healthy anti-Masonic movement. He didn't become a Mason until the early 1840s in the Nauvoo era, which was over 10 years after the Book of Mormon was produced. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

fair enough but the idea that "master Mahan" is some kind of jab at masons is a little odd considering that smith wrote pearl of great price after he wrote the book of mormon, the mormon book also has numerous accounts of decrying 'secret combinations' witch is what cain does acording to smith later, so why would he even join masons if he thought the masons were evil. It doesn't make sense is all i'm saying.Sanitycult (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, people's attitudes have been known to change over time. One view is that Smith joined the Masons simply in an attempt to gain some level of personal protection for himself and the Latter Day Saints and that he didn't really agree with the underlying principles of Masonry. But then again, he adopted much of the Masonic symbolism for the Endowment, so ... There are many contradictions, in my opinion. This discussion seems to be verging off into general chat, though, so we should redirect it back to the article, if there is an issue directly related to it. General critiques of the opinions expressed in the sources reported in the article probably don't belong here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that Joseph Smith ever discouraged the saints to join the Masons? Evidence is quite to the contrary given the number of early Latter Day Saints that were members and continued to be members. Brigham Young, who also was a Mason, spoke out against the Masons after Joseph's death because Masons participated in his murder, but Joseph did not. If you do not have any evidence that Joseph Smith spoke against the Masons; it is not OR to state that he did not it is simple fact. One does not prove a negative; rather one proves the opposite. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, in WP we don't report anything without having a source that has reported the same thing. If we want to say someone never did something, we don't say it unless we have a source that says they didn't. That's what no OR means. It doesn't mean you can state any negative you want just because you can't "prove" a negative. If it's a simple fact, then there should be a source which reports it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the logic; one does not need to have a reference to state that Jesus Christ never spoke about Buddha; there simply is not any evidence that he did. One can not prove negatives of this type. What we have is wild speculation about where Master Mahan came from, but no supporting evidence. Most the LDS were members of the lodge, Smith never spoke out against it (sort of stupid when everyone is a practicing member don't you think!), nor did any of the other brethren during Smith's life time. When something did not happen no academic writes about all the things that were not said. What we do is record what was said; thus we provide references for what did happen and not for what never happened. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'm not "missing it". I've heard this argument before, but it's usually a nice way of trying to get around WP:OR, which I don't agree with. Sorry. You don't need to try to inform me of the status of Masonry among early Latter Day Saints. I'm well aware of it. If you'd like to add some published responses to the Tanner's claims in this article that don't constitute OR, that's probably where your efforts would be most beneficial. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand why it is best never to address the logic of a matter or repsond to statements. When in doubt put your head in the sand and keep repeating your position; it is the way to enlightenment. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that comment is appropriate or productive. When you disagree with an editor, there are helpful ways and unhelpful ways to act on WP. This was unhelpful, in my opinion. I did in fact respond to your comment; I said that I disagree with the use of deductive logic to get around WP:OR. That's my opinion, and I can't be any clearer about what my view is. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well duh! All you have done is repeat your position and not engage in discussion. Pretending that you are right because you can repeat your position does not make it right or correct. It means that you are closed and only regard your opinion as correct.

On the other hand, I think this has become moot because any logical person will see the stupidity of the position when they find read the linked article on Masonry. It makes absolute no sense to attack a group where so many of your friends and the main leadership core of the church were Masons. I think the weakness to too obvious for readers to miss. Go for it and keep repeating. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see that you don't have much desire to be nice or even civil at this stage. I encourage you to make efforts to improve how you treat others when you disagree with them. Best wishes, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I caution you that you are in danger of violating 3RR; if you persist in displaying owndership behavior and reverting repeatedly the edits of others you will be blocked. Cheers! --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you carefully examine my edits, I think you'll see that I have not reverted 3 times; if your 'warning' is a pre-emptive notice because you believe I have reverted twice, I thank you and can assure you I am aware of the rule; and if you examine even more carefully, you'll probably discover that some of the edits you might classify as "reverts" were merely supporting edits to eliminate POV, etc. I see exactly one straight revert that I've performed on the page in 24 hours. As for the WP:OR issue, I did originally delete an unsourced statement you added, but then I immediately changed this and gave you the benefit of the doubt on your edits and have added a tag rather than deleting it outright, which is only fair. Your claim that I am exhibiting ownership tells me that you have been upset, which I can understand, but I think you'd find other editors respond better when you are nice to them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What a delightfully droll little person you are. My warnings are simply a reminder for you; there is no need to project personal issues on other editors here. I see that you are a reactive sort; typically we encourage editors not to react as you do, but simply to act in a manner that is in accord with policies. It is helpful that you recognized the beinnnings of your own shortcomings by self-reverting. That is a good sign; congratulations for a job well done. I hope you continue that behavior as you interact with other editors. It is best to use the dicussion page to achieve a cooperative experience when you are in disagreement with others; which appears to be more often then not. Again, no projecting and always assume good faith of others. Cheers.

Projecting? I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. "Personal issues"? Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at, unless you are being sarcastic (which I am assuming you are not since (1) that wouldn't be an assumption of good faith, and (2) seasoned editors such as yourself have usually figured out long ago that sarcasm never works very well in printed form on the internet and it generally just makes one look like a dick, as it were). If what you mean is you feel I have unkind to you, I apologize to you. I'm also not sure what your intent is in bringing up AFG. I don't feel that anyone — you or I — was doing otherwise in the past discussion. In my suggestion for you to be nice, I was referring to your comments of "[w]ell duh!", "you are closed and only regard your opinion as correct", "[w]hen in doubt put your head in the sand and keep repeating your position", and others. I know it's difficult in retrospect to perhaps admit your comments were inappropriate, and because of that I don't expect you to do so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I know this is probably beating a dead horse, but just so you know, I'm also not sure what you mean by "when you are in disagreement with others; which appears to be more often then not". I have had very few disagreements with others in WP and all have been resolved through the use of talk pages. I'm unsure why you feel you are in a position to assess my cumulative past editing patterns or the proportion of my edits which have caused conflicts.  ?? Your comments are mystifying to me and I'll assume you must be having a bad day. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, at least you are worth a good laugh. As an aside, I have had a great day. As for being experienced on Wikipedia; you are correct. I have been here a while and have dealt with all types of editors. You make me laugh....and yes, you are beating a dead horse. Have a happy day. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Further proof that "experience" does not necessarily lead to positive qualities/behavior in editors. ... I didn't think it was asking much to (1) be kind and then (2) to explain yourself further when your comments appear at first glance to be overly aggressive or rude; but now I know it is, at least for you. (If this was a "great day" for you must be a real cherry blossom on a bad day!) The rest of us will continue to try to foster a positive attitude towards fellow editors, regardless of viewpoint. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

An absolutely capital idea. I can see that it will be a difficult journey for you; first you must gain an understanding of being kind is not getting your way, but actually being genuine with others. It demands honesty, but in time you may gain a greater understanding of the principles involved. Just don't give up! You can do it if you try hard enough. Also, you may want to consider that there is no "rest of us"; it is just you. Cheers! --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it may take time for me to understand that using such phrases as "[w]ell duh!", "you are closed and only regard your opinion as correct", "[w]hen in doubt put your head in the sand and keep repeating your position" are what kindness and courtesy are all about. It's a long road up the slope to becoming a crotchety old man, but I'm sure I'll make it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on the article and how to improve it. You seem to have a lot to say; please consider using a blog where you can write to your heart's content. Also, you may want to review policies for using discussion pages and editing. Cheers! --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; that's what I was originally trying to do — improve the article by eliminating WP:OR and explaining why I believed your addition to be so. It was you who chose to delve into the deductive logic of why what you were saying was clearly true, even though it may not have been verifiable, which then degenerated into fairly bizarre pseudo-attacks. In any case, that's the overall point, in my opinion — WP is about verifiability, not necessarily truth, and unless we can verify statements made in the article that are without sourcing, they should be removed. That's why I removed it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

When deleting information from an article for references, wikipedia provides the following policies:

"If an article has no references, and you are unable to find them yourself, you can tag the article with the template {{Unreferenced}}, so long as the article is not nonsensical or a BLP, in which case request admin assistance. If a particular claim in an article lacks citation and is doubtful, consider placing {{fact}} after the sentence or removing it. Consider the following in deciding which action to take:

1. If a claim is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Wikipedia, use the {{fact}} tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.

2. If a claim is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it as very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense. All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel."

I will revert your abuse of policy, make sure the fact tag is remains until support is given. From this point forward, please follow policies. If you do not know policies, just ask and I will be happy to assist you in telling you where to go. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer, but judging from past applications of WP:BEHAVE, I'm not sure if you would be my choice for an advisor about policies. (A bit of a PKB situation, unfortunately.) I think I'll manage O.K. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have found no statement by Joseph Smith that was against the Masons; you indicated you had a deep knowledge of this part of LDS history, are you aware of any statements by Smith that was against the Masons? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No. The sentence in question states, "Joseph Smith is not known to have ever have discouraged the Latter Day Saints from participating in freemasonry". The reason this is WP:OR is because there is no citation that says this; you have apparently determined it to be so by deductive logic as opposed to having a source that reports it. I will give you and other editors about a week to find a citation; after that, there's nothing wrong with removing it, and in fact it should be. The reason I removed it after your comments is you did not express any intention to seek out a source (and there's no one else actively editing the page); in fact, you responded by mocking me. I hardly think that qualifies as an "abuse" of process, but if it's so in your world, that's fine too and I apologize to you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please desist from attacking other editors; focus solely on the editing and improving the article. Editing is not about other editors or about you; it is about reporting facts. You are violating several policies, which you should probably review. Please see assume good faith, attacking others, and disruptive editing. Also, a reasonable time frame frame would be two weeks; on Wikipedia we encourage people to be reasonable.

You also did not respond to the question, do you have any evidence that Joseph Smith ever said anything against the Masons? That is the only evidence that will disprove the statement. I am not even aware of the Tanners using evidence to support their statement; it comes from whole cloth, is fringe theory, and not supported by history, which is abnormal for them because they usually are very good at supporting their positions with historical fact. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I did respond to the question. It was the first word I typed in response: "No". Thanks for your "pointers" — helpful as always, I see. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV sources and desperate anti-mormonism

I'm no fan of the church but not only is the tanner article misquoted (The only 'joe smith changed his mind' part of it seems to imply the exact opposite of what this article is saying. And it says after his 'earlier writings' not after he wrote the book of moses.) but the article itself is pretty defamatory, the thing of the matter is that the article has agenda and is indended to ridicule and 'get mormons to consider where their secret temple practices really come from' implying that it doesn't come from church leaders when it fact it does. Regardless of belief and speculation, joe smith and the early founders were the source of the temple ceremonies. Being that the papari he 'transalted' it from (most likely) doesn't say what he claims it says just makes it even more clear that smith was the source of the ceremony. The source is NPOV, how can you claim the article is fair when the sources are not? Cant we merge the cain master mahan thing with a 'mormon interpretation' section in the cain article and leave all the wild speculation out of it?Sanitycult (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree we can make this article NPOV, but I don't see a problem per se with citing the Tanners. What we need in addition, however, is citations for the opposite view from some Mormon apologist, perhaps responding to the Tanners. A statement like "Joseph Smith is not known to have said X", for example, needs a citation on that point. We might be able to say that, but only if some Mormon apologist has said it first. We should also avoid making this article a re-hash of the entire Freemasonry and the Latter Day Saint movement superarticle. This topic is very limited, and the discussion should stay focused. I think a good boundary line we should draw is that any citation should directly discuss the term Master Mahan, not just the Mormonism-Freemasonry connection in general. There has to be some Mormon apologist who has discussed this topic, that we can cite. COGDEN 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You may have added reference that defeats the statement, but I could not read the pages. The reference states that the Tanners record that Joseph Smith view of Masonry changed after the Pearl of Great Price was written; can you check the reference and confirm what they actually said? Also, have you ever heard of Joseph making a statement against the Masons? Additionally, do you have an idea of which LDS apologist would have proved that Joseph never made a statement against the Masons? That is really an odd statement to make; generally historians write about what was said and not everything an individual did not say. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I verified the Tanner reference, and it is correctly cited. As to the uncited statement, I agree this is not likely something you would find in any reference. I did a quick look for what was out there, and there are a couple of Nibley works that discuss this subject which are not online. But I doubt he said this. Likely, no Mormon author has made such a statement, which would mean we need to narrow the statement to something that can be backed up with a citation. The Quinn reference discusses this issue to some extent, and might say something citable on this point, but his focus was more on magic than freemasonry. I have Quinn's book, so I'll try to take a look. COGDEN 21:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is always more than one way to skin a cat. What I am reacting to is this notion that comes out of thin air that the Tanner's have that Joseph is attacking Free Masonry in the creation of the name. I thought maybe the Tanner's actually have other evidence than their personal belief that they sound alike and therefor that it is self-evident. I agree historians do not provide evidence of what people do not say (to me it is one of the reasons I do not think this statement needs to be referenced); they record what was said. Has any historian ever come up with any evidence that Joseph spoke against Free Masonry? Is there any evidence anywhere that Joseph discouraged the saints from participating in Free Masonry? I have read none, but I also think you, COgden, are more well read than I am. If no other historian has ever recorded anything about Joseph Smith being negative about Free Masonry, then is not this quote by the Tanners a fringe theory? If it is fringe then it should not be in the article because it is not supported by reputable historians. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The tanner article is absurd! they also claim that "Joseph Smith may have "combined the first syllables of Morgan and Monroe" to make the name Mormon (No Man Knows My History, page 64)." morgan and monroe are anti-masons, why the hell would a person name a religious movement after the combining of last names of anti-masons and then later JOIN the masons? I think its a safe bet to eliminate the mahan=mason crap as the same absurd lunacy.Sanitycult (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

If there is a concern about a claim being a fringe theory, a number of things may be considered. The more reputable the authors and/or publisher, the less likely a position qualifies as a fringe theory; the less reputable, the more likely. The surest way to assuage concerns about the fringe nature of a claim is to find similar discussions of the matter in reliable sources. If an author or publisher is less reputable and no discussion of the same subject can be found, one may assume with fair confidence that such claims are an extreme minority. The Tanners are notable researchers that are very often useful for LDS-related article, but they are of mixed reputation and reliability. If they make an isolated claim not supported by other sources of equal or better reliability, it is unlikely to be suitable for inclusion. Due to the nature of religious discourse, it may also be suitable if apologists have made an explicit note of, or rebuttal to, the position. Vassyana (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC) You can help too by providing a third opinion. RfC and editor review could also always use a few extra voices!

That's the thing, i'm unaware that any apologist has ever considered the entemology of 'mormon' or 'master mahan' the way that the tanners claim. (they have considered and argued about the mormon name but not as a combination of last names of people but the meaning of the name egyptian or hebrew origins witch does not have anything to do with the tanner claims.) If i understand you correctly i think that unless some reputible apologist has addressed this mahan=mason theory we can safely remove it as fringe or unreliable or a claim of an extreeme minority. If apologists consider it beneath them to argue this (witch i suspect because of the lack of sources in the article, the fact that the sources they do have are all disreputable or antagonistic, and that the tanners expect readers to see 'obvious' logic that is neither obvious or logical "master mahan sounds like master mason" is a rediculous reason for a historical or theological claim.) i think we should see this claim as beneath wikipedia's inclusion. It should be deleted after a few days if an apologist adressing the mahan=mason claim cannot be found.Sanitycult (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A reputable apologist or an outside expert addressing the claim would establish that it's likely a noteworthy claim (whether true or false). Multiple critical sources asserting the same or similar claim would similarly establish it is likely noteworthy. Both instances would allow the reasonable assumption that the information is studied and/or held by enough of a minority to deserve at least a passing mention. Vassyana (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm re-adding the material based on its mention by an apologist in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. This is really just an expansion of what is discussed in the lead paragraph. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana above stated that what was needed is a reputable reference in support of this fringe claim. Brown does not support the Tanners' conclusion, he only admits that anti-Mormons have stated it. That is hardly support for the conclusion, only that he is aware that critics have stated it.

Do you know of anyone that has provided any support that Joseph Smith was attacking the Masons? I am not aware of anyone that has made this leap of logic except for the Tanners. That is why it is a fringe theory. It simply does not hold water when one considers the number of early Mormon leadership that were also Masons. Joseph Smith never attacked the Masons or accused them of being evil. Later, Brigham Young said things against the Masons, but that was after Smith was murdered.

I am not a Mason, I don't have a horse in this race, but I am for improving articles and your re-addition of the information is not an improvement, but rather a step back into innuendo and falsehood. You have misused a reference to say something it does not say. What is needed is for Brown to have said the Master Mahan is really Mason Mason, which of course is not at all what he said. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"A reputable apologist or an outside expert addressing the claim would establish that it's likely a noteworthy claim (whether true or false)." --Vassyana

It's not being included as a means of demonstrating that it's true. It's there to support the fact that it's a commonly made claim or at least one that has been acknowledged by apologists who don't agree with it. A glance at the Brown article shows that he is arguing against it, not in favor of it. I think everyone agrees with that.

In any case, there's nothing there idea-wise that I've included that isn't already mentioned in the lead paragraphs. It simply adds detail to what is initially outlined there, which is what the body of the article should do in relation to the lead. Why was it OK for User:COGDEN to add the references in the lead but then it's not OK for me to add detail in the body?

Incidentally, the wording of "Master Mahan" being an "attack" on Masonry has been reworded to the more neutral "reference to" Masonry. Those who make the argument aren't uniform in the belief that it's an "attack", so that issue is largely irrelevant now, judging by what the article currently states. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Push...Push Back?

I've noticed that since my and other people's efforts to make this article neutral, there has been several overhauls not only re-establishing the Tanner arguments but saturating the entire article with less than fair implications, and off topic criticisms of the Mormon church. The wordage and tone of the whole thing has become absurdly negative. I feel I must remind people that the Tanners have a "Christian" agenda and don't have a monopoly on the historical record, being hobbyists (If you can call religious intolerance a hobby) with no degree, no credentials and not even the facade of objective research. Their arguments are more than absurd. Having a Mormon concept in an encyclopedia have more than half of its content devoted to the lunacy of of evangelical-esque zealots who devote their lives to the downfall of a time-tested religion is trading one bunch of bible thumping retards for another. You don't have to like the church (I personally hate them) but I think as an encyclopedia you should tell the empirical facts (Not fringe theory with an agenda behind it.) and make the text plain.Sanitycult (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This has "been gone through" before. If a theory of a term's source is proposed by someone, and then that theory is commented on by numerous commentators both anti- and pro-Mormon, then it's worthy of mention, regardless of what you yourself or anyone else feels about the person(s) who originally proposed the origin. However, to argue that "Master Mahan" comes from "Master Mason" is not necessarily "more than absurd"; if it is indeed that absurd, then pro-Mormon commentators would have ignored it and not addressed the claim head-on. In any case, right now, material that involves the Tanners comes nowhere near to "more than half of" the content of the article. I think it's looking quite good, compared to what it started out as. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, the old racist addage that "negroes enjoy watermellon more than whites" is more than absurd. That statement being ever adressed by any apologist doesn't make it less absurd. To agree with the Tanners is to take sides in a shit fight played by monkeys. They are both "wrong" in the sense that they believe in things that cannnot possibly exist (A God of any definition). This is not the point. The point is that people come to this article and expect information about what "Master Mahan" is to Mormons. The definition and the context. Not only do the Tanners distract from both the definition and context but they dream up realities that exist only for them and expect secular and neutral information seekers to understand the insane evangelical views they promote. Instead of writing an article that is a veild promotion of evangelical nutjobs, I propose simply stating what Mormons believe and how it effects their culture. As if it were information and not propaganda. Personally I don't think we need to get into weather Coke (Evangelicallism) or Pepsi (Mormonsism.) is "best" I only think that a pepsi question needs a pepsi answer.Sanitycult (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In contrast, I think the article should report on any significant issues/discussion on the term that has been had in any third party material. I guess that's where we part. In my opinion, it's not taking sides or discussing "weather" Coke or Pepsi is "best"; it's just reporting what others have said. That's generally what encylopedias do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the concept is fringe, then it is fringe and should not be given weight. I have respect for a great deal of work by the Tanners, but they also can get way out there. Simply because someone has commented on silliness does not transform it into mainstream thought. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that just begs the question and takes us back to whether or not it is fringe; like the other issues mentioned above, this has all "been gone through" before. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Neh, I don't think an encyclopedia is "just reporting what others have said." No. You'll never convince me of this. The article should contain facts of enough valid weight. Gossip rags have accused everyone in hollywood of getting boob and or nosejobs but you don't see TMZ and others quoted on every celebrity page, the reason for this is because the "facts" that gossip rags deliver, while they be publications or websites, ect, are not worth their weight. I'm going to clean this article up and once again remove the Tanner stuff as fringe. The Tanners have made valid points but "master mahan = master mason because it sounds that way to me, a evangelical psychopath who has devoted my life to discredit a rival religion" doesn't cut the mustard.Sanitycult (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would advise against removing that information, since it's the very information we are discussing and there is no clear-cut consensus on removing it. The appropriate move in the case of disagreement would be to seek the input from other editors, not just to simply decide that your opinion, being obviously more correct, is the one that should govern the situation. I'd welcome input from other editors.

What you may not be realising or acknowledging is that the Tanner information is not being included as a means of demonstrating that it's true. It's there demonstrate that it's a commonly made claim or at least one that has been acknowledged by apologists who don't agree with it. This is what I meant when I (colloquially) said we report on what other say. In other words, we don't assess the validity of the arguments when they have been presented by one side and directly addressed by the other — we report on the dispute. [See the "Third Opinion" that was given in the section above on fringe theories.] You can make all the awkwardly inapposite comparisons to "boob job" rumors that you want, but you may want to try your mustard cutter on some of your arguments for a change. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Other editors seem to say its fringe theory and doesn't warrant inclusion. As for what I should be realizing: the tanner information IS absolutely being saturated throughout the whole article, not just in a 'criticism' section in order to soap-box against Mormonism in general, you've put you're bigoted views in every paragraph since you've been editing this article, the links you added only lead to non-topic arguments against temple ceremonies, ect. Also, it is NOT a commonly made claim. It is made by the tanners alone. There is no dispute in the article, the tanner 'facts' witch are all based on their personal speculations are taken as mater of fact. I'm removing the content and pushing for NPOV because it's the right thing to do.12.206.60.107 (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, why can't i remove erroneous information based on my opinion when you've added your content regardless of weather it belongs based on your opinion? Some editors are more equal than others? I don't understand you. All you've done is made this minor article about a Mormon concept into your personal crusade.Sanitycult (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I think you may be conflating my edits with others have made, as my changes have been quite minor and have not touched on what you suggest as being "every paragraph". Other editors were heavily involved in restructuring the article and including the mention of the Tanners' argument in the lead and then later on, but it wasn't me. Second, yes, it is a commonly made claim, and I will get some more citations that make the same argument if you'd like. Third, you should probably not call others "bigoted" or being engaged in "personal crusades", when you have no idea about their motivations, attitudes, or personal beliefs. Besides, it could be viewed as a personal attack, which really has no place in WP. Fourth, let's find out what some other editors think about the fringe theory thing. The last third party opinion that was cited suggested that theories, even if they are fringe, could appropriately be included when other commentators on the other side have addressed it head on, which is the case here. If you're not satisfied with that view, canvas some others, but don't just ignore it all and try to go your own way. Finally, this article has been the subject of a miniscule percentage of my total edits on WP, so it can hardly be said to be the subject of my "personal crusade". The article and talk page seems to have consumed at least 10% of your own edits, though, which is not an insignificant proportion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, man, you appear to be unable to read. Your edits are 'minor'? lets find out what some other editors have to say? Read above you. I am not the only one who thinks this is fringe theory. And your edits for the article and the talk triumph over mine, not that it MEANS anything. What the hell is your agenda? Why are you insisting the article be a redirect to the lunacy of the Tanners? It has NOTHING to do with the term "master mahan" i am removing it again because it is fringe theory and not relevant. Also, you seem to be reading the Tanner shit a little to deeply as your logic is falling apart at the seams... why do you think your revelations on my and your edits have anything to do with the argument? I don't get you. I am talking about this article and your insistence on making it larger than it needs to be with tons of repetition and forcing bad criticisms and outlandish conspiracy theories from distracting people from what a encyclopedia article should be.Sanitycult (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks; they are inappropriate. You seem upset, and I can only suggest that you try to calm down. My points above were laid out to directly address the points you brought up — if you don't want me addressing certain topics that you find "irrelevant", you could refrain from bringing them up. Anyway, just because something is a fringe theory does not mean it's not worthy of mention in an article. While a theory may be a fringe theory, if it has been directly addressed by commentators on the opposite side of the issue, they are therefore notable and worth mentioning. Therefore it is also relevant. It's inappropriate for you to continue to perform the edits deleting the information before we've had some more input from other editors. I see some editors who have argued the material should be removed, and still others who have argued that it should be kept, including some who added the information. (If you carefully review the edit history, you will find that I am not the only editor who has added this material.) I've been canvassing some for input; perhaps we will hear from some of them soon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your NPOV agenda. Fringe theory does not warrant inclusion, provide a source of a mormon apologist or secular historian that VERIFIES the Tanner claim. The one you provided only ridicules the claim and mentioning the grassy knoll is not evidence for it. Once you have your source that the Tanner claim is anything but pure speculation from a hysterically anti-mormon base that contradicts history of Joseph smith being a Mason and encouraging others, then include the information in the theory section only, not peppered throughout the article as a distraction from people actually learning what the term means. As long as the tanner claim is fringe, witch you admit. Leave it out unless it is addressed by a valid source (Not the various anti-mormon websites but a publication that has merit or a historical record.)Sanitycult (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not admit it is fringe. I was assuming it was for the sake of another argument; i.e., "even if it is fringe, then x. I have no "agenda" about the page, and would appreciate it if you could WP:AGF. It's also not "peppered throughout" the article. It's mentioned in the lead and then once in the body. Since the lead is supposed to summarise what's in the body, I don't see any "peppering" problem. Anyway, I'm not going to edit-war with you, but I'm going to try to get some other editors involved here, since I'm a bit disturbed by some of your recent behaviour. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The only evidence the Tanners provide for their position of where the term came from is that it sounds like Master Mason. A "sounds like" position is a position made from whole cloth. At no point to they present information that Joseph Smith was really a closet anti-Mason. The very thought is preposterous given that most of the early leaders of the church were Masons and one of the things that Joseph Smith was supposedly trying to say before his death was a Masonic plea for help. Good, you and I have clashed before, but this is not personal. I honestly think this is worthless trivia. The argument that apologists have responded to it and therefore it must be reasonable also does not hold water and is a poor standard to use. For example, someone calls you an anti-Semite and you respond to the accusation. Does that make it a legitimate accusation, simply because you responded to it or that you denied it? Of course not! It would at least be helpful if the Tanners gave some evidence or a case, but there is nothing except, gosh boys and girls, Master Mahan sure sounds like Master Mason to me, doesn't it to you? Further, I don't know what it adds to the article. Are we trying to say that Smith was an anti-Mason? That is not something that was unusual for the time period. I would ask you, what exactly does it add to the article? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You needlessly interpret the reference as being "anti-"Freemasonry. No one suggests its necessarily an "anti-" reference. It's not "trying" to suggest anything about Smith or Mormonism (why would we do that? — that sounds awfully like you're suggesting there's an underlying agenda at work) — it's simply reporting on a commonly held back and forth dispute that's been had between some critics and some apologists on the origins of the world. Quinn devotes 2 pages in his book to the subject, where he explicitly rejects the "Master Mason" hypothesis in favor of the "Mahoun" hypothesis, so it's not insignificant. I have other references than "just" the Tanners, so it's not them alone that have been part of the dialogue on the issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See section below, where I've summarized the six sources that discuss the derivation theory — some are opposed, some are in favour, and some are neutral. It's becoming difficult to argue, though, that it's not a position that is addressed fairly regularly one way or the other, and by more than one particular couple. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) The topic of the article is Master Mahan and what it is within the Latter Day Saint movement. However, the majority of the article has evolved into a discussion of where the term came from. What is the value and objective of the article? It certainly is not the conversation amoung third parties about where the term came from. The forest has become lost because of the tree.

Master Mahan is a title. It is used to designate those who have learned that they can kill others to get personal gain. LDS believe that it was first used by individuals important in early Judeo-Christian scripture. The current article is out of balance based upon the topic. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno — it's only out of balance if we're reporting on what others have said about the topic in an out of balance way. If you could find more "mainstream Mormon" commentary on Master Mahan and its theological implications or whatever, by all means it should be added. From my research, though, the majority of the discussion of the term both by members of the LDS Church and by non-members has revolved around the term's derivation. It's for that reason that the article has a section on this, not because anyone has been necessarily "cherry picking" the information we are reporting on. I see no reason to exclude that information just because it's felt that it's not in line with what some see as the primary "value and objective" of the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not recommend the extreme of deleting it entirely, but the gist of my position remains in the area of balance to the article. What we have now is half the article attempting to address the derivation of the term, rather than the actual topic. Is your position that the derivation of the term is equally import to the actual topic?

Further, this topic is rather obscure and plays no significant role in LDS theology. Given its obscurity, it makes it all the more odd that the derivation of the term has such a prominent role. I generally shy away from these obscure topics gaining article status, but I am not even sure I would merge the information. It has no real place in LDS theology, but is more a curiosity of LDS thoughts about the past and the motivations for Cain's actions.

As an aside, I still don't equate the validity of a position equated to who responds or comments about it. I am not sure if it is wise to allow proposals to go completely unanswered, but in the answering does not equate to validity. Even in your sources you list those who debunk the theory. Some time it might be worth looking at other articles and see how much is devoted to derivation of a term versus the actual topic. Based upon my reivew this article is out of balance. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggested adding more information that is not on derivation, if it is available. Since it is a bit obscure as a doctrinal point, as you point out, there may not be any. But there has been a lot written on the derivation. What justifies us ignoring what has been written on it? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The article title directs the discussion of an article; if you want to change the name to something that appropriately fits the focus you want to cover, go for it. For some reason I am from the school that thinks the article should focus on the topic of the article rather than anything else; that would also be the school of thought of Wikipedia. Are you proposing that articles should not focus on the topic of the article or are you saying that there is not enough information on the topic and you are therefore forced to cover another topic? Let's try to stick with following policy; maybe this needs to be deleted, merged, or the title changed. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, of course I'm not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that the article should reflect what has been written about "Master Mahan" in the real world. Since real world commentators have largely focused on the derivation or meaning of the term, it's not surprising that a WP article will reflect that. That's all. I'm looking forward to what comments the RfA delivers, if any. I believe most editors will agree that the information now included is legitimately placed in the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

wikiquette response

allow me to preface this by saying that I can't help you with the substance of the article. this is all (at least from my perspective) fairly arcane, and I have no idea how one would judge fringe from non-fringe here.

that being said, it does feel like tempers are flaring a bit. Sanitycult, I recognize that you think Good Ol’factory is trying to add a fringe opinion, but is there any way you can fit it in in some minor capacity? my own feeling is that if you can fit it in without (a) an unwieldy amount of explanation, and (b) without throwing the balance of the article to hell and back, then you should at least give it a try. honestly, I just think the argument will resolve itself quicker if you stop thinking in 'yes/no' absolutes, and instead phrase it as a 'how much?' issue.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

looking a little more carefully at the diffs, it seems as though part of the problem here is secular v. non-secular perspectives. I'm thinking particularly about the difference in the first lines you propose

• In the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

vs.

• In the sacred texts of the Latter Day Saint movement

Both versions strike me as POV. can you use something more innocuous, like "According to Mormon religious texts..."?--Ludwigs2 (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Both of your suggestions are good. I think that the Tanner stuff should be confined to the Theory section but it needs more sources to warrant it's inclusion. I didn't change the "sacred texts" part because it was NPOV i changed it to make it clear, but your suggestion might be better.Sanitycult (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Religious texts" is good. The problem with just using the "Joseph Smith translation of the Bible" is that it's also in the Pearl of Great Price, which includes excerpts from the JST but not the entire thing. The excerpts are canonized by the LDS Church but the entire JST is not. Referring to "texts" plural is probably better. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Sanitycult, you stated that "the Tanner stuff should be confined to the Theory section". It has been the entire time, with the exception of a mention in the lead paragraphs. Perhaps this is more a misunderstanding of the purpose of the lead paragraph(s). I believe it is to briefly summarise the contents of the body of the article, which follows. This is a common format for articles on WP, and it is exactly the pattern that has been followed with this article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to recap for a moment: the "Master Mahan" as "Master Mason" argument is made or acknowledged now in six cited sources: Tanner, Quinn, Brown, Arbaugh, Homer and Whelan. Three of the sources (Tanner, Arbaugh, and Whelan) make the connection and argue for a derivation; one (Homer) points out the connection but takes no position on it; and two (Brown and Quinn) acknowledge the argument as a traditional one made and then go on to present what they believe are better or more convincing derivations. I'm not sure what more could be asked for on this point, really; it's being addressed by proponents and detractors and neutral people and we're citing all of them. There are no quotes from the Tanners — the only quotes are from those that dispute the theory. Even the detractors acknowledge that it's at minimum a commonly-made argument. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you guys have started an RFC below. Excellent, and thank you for going that route - I think it will help you resolve this dispute in a much more constructive and civil manner than past handlings of the dispute. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Request for comment: Is the "Master Mahan = Master Mason Theory" Verifiable, keeping to Neutral Point of View, or not Original Research? Is it worthy of inclusion in the article?

A Good Example of a Terrible Article

This is a great example of the innacuracy, inconsistancy, and parody of neutrality that is wikipedia. Facts don't belong, only agendas. Fairness is a joke, as long as one editor with a chip on his or her shoulder decides that reality should warp to his or her perspective at all costs. Sources are hyperlinks and only need to marginally relate to the article. Opinions are facts and facts are whatever "feels" right to the dominant editor, or the editor that will stop at nothing to push his or her viewpoints. Its no wonder that articles about internet memes overshaddow articles about the founding fathers and movies and comic books tend to be the only articles without glaring errors. Wikipedia is a giant press kit, a car commercial, and a mob of griefers and trolls that just want to undermine everything for the fun of it. Good Olfactory, good luck with your article. Good luck with your altering history and reality, not that anyone ever goes to wikipedia for facts or research anymore anyway, and good luck with setting up little bastions of ignorance, intollerance, bigotry and personal humor on all the little articles out there that are unworthy of attention by other editors. You've worn me out.Sanitycult (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's give him a big hand, folks! He deserves it! (Wait, I'm 9 months late on this? My watchpage is obviously seriously messed up ...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

When I saw it yesterday my initial reaction was to comment, but then I had to laugh when I saw the time span between the two edits. Regardless, he did spin a decent bit of vitriol. --^StormRider 21:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, this popped up on my watchlist! I think it may have something to do with the universal clock add-on I recently added, but still—ridiculous! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

C O N S P I R A C Y !

Mahan Air is an Iranian Airline.

Makkan is the PC GAME *HOMEWORLD 2* ADVERSARY

I suggest those interesting in further investigation of MASTER MAHAN, investigate ISLAM. (lolz, but not joke)

Whatever potential animosity is discovered....motives and agenda do not matter -> CITE YOUR SOURCE

WIKIPEDIA allows for Published Hearsay....just not Original Hearsay.

ps: If Cain = Perdition, and the "Natural Man is an Enemy unto God." then suppose Cain is the perfect representation of the "NATURAL MAN"...or NATURAL MAHAN. :)

I'm just giving leads to those who are willing to investigate and benefit the rest of us. If I find anything worth referencing, I will make mention of it so that it can be discussed in regards to its relevancy on this article.

Loneindividual (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

To quote someone else who already said this very well: "you seem to have some misunderstandings about Wikipedia. Our core principles are that we are an encyclopedia, not a soapbox to publish opinions from or a place to fight outside battles. This is not the place to do those things - you should create a blog or website, write op-ed articles for magazines, write a book, etc. We are a collection of neutral point of view encyclopedia articles." -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing outdated tags

These two tags are years old, and the article seems to have improved in both aspects --Greenmaven (talk) 07:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Master Mahan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613164218/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C16999 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C16999

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)