Talk:Alma 32:1-5

I shall attempt to go into thoughts upon different things of this chapter. I wish to start from the begining and I wish anyone who would care to comment to do so so that I can learn all that I can about this chapter. I usually write what I have learned and wish to share with others. I love this chapter it has been a very topic of study for many years off and on, so much to learn. Alma at the begining states that he found sucess amoung those who were poor class of people. They were considered to be dross. I was once asked of an investiagtor what dross meant and I had no clue, so to help any that may be in the same boat as I here is what I have learned to be the meaning of dross, (I know I use the dictionary alot in my comments but to me it is a great tool for insight on why words are placed with other words) Dross is defined as in the Easton Bible Dictionary as "The impurities of silver separated from the one in the process of melting" Meaning the part of the silver that is thrown away and cast to be of no worth. So the people that were ready to hear the gospel because they were humble, they were humble because to there brothers they were considered to be of no worth. They were looking for something. I am foing to ponder some more on the first part of this chapter and share more of what I learn later. Any insights on the first verses of this chapter would be very appreciated, I want to get as much out of it as possible. I know it will go into more detail later in the chapter but I am going step by step so I can understand more fully the rest of the chapter.--Jeff Batt 04:25, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I have been thinking more about what is important in this chapters begining verses, In studing I have found dome things that point our why the reason the more poor as of the things of this world are some of the first to be responsive to the gospel. In the book Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 3 it states "that for it has been echoed by thousands of missionaries who have been the first to open various cities and regions to the teaching of the gospel; in so doing, they have found that the well-to-do, those resting comfortably in their own self-sufficiency, have little or no interest in their message, while those whose conditions are appreciably more humble are often more willing to listen." why are they more open. Does a sense of security as to worldly things stop one from thinking that they need God? A false sense of security can stop the spirit from longing for God's presence. Paul states "Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called; but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence" (Corinthians 1:26-29). Is it any wonder why Christ came among the poor? These things can humble us and have us search for God. I also add though that it also depends where the heart lies. A man can be a begger on the street but if his heart lies in finding gold and always be thinking about riches and still have the same effect as though he were rich. Also a rich man can be humble, but it seems as though a false sense of security in worldy things can often make you forget God. These people who came unto Alma had been despised and thought of as unclean from their brethern that they were humbled and searching for something to lift them up spiritually. Alma knew this and that they would be more responsive to the gospel so he immediatly turned to them. We learn later in this chapter that they are even more blessed those that would humble themselves regardless of what situation they may be in. Their knowledge at the time also was only that they could worship in the church, they were not of the understanding that God could be worshiped anywhere. It was probably taught to them all their lives and so that is what they understood.--Jeff Batt 04:25, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, these are good thoughts. I have two aspects to add to your thinking, to work into your commentary, etc. First, it is so fascinating to me that Jesus claimed quite clearly that "the poor shall inherit the earth." Though Jesus said "the poor in heart," that is clarified in D&C 88 to be rather stricter: the poor and meek of the earth are to inherit it. There is something significant about that: the poor are the ones who will be saved. Second, closely connected as well, it was recently pointed out to me that the disciples' response to Jesus' "hard as a camel through the eye of a needle" statement is best read contextually as based on a presupposition that the rich were the blessed. In other words, the disciples grew up in a culture (Israelite) that held quite clearly the belief that the rich were the privileged of the Lord (Max Weber's work is being read somewhere in the back of my mind), and Jesus essentially undoes that, reverses it in fact. These two details, introduced to the beginning of this story, are quite significant: the poor receive precisely because the poor are to be exalted. What does that mean? --Joe Spencer 23:53, 15 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I have been doing some more thinking and I have a couple of questions I wanted to throw out here and see if anybody can help. First, does silver have acient symbolic meaning? and if so what is it? Also why do you think the word dross is used to describe the lower class people in this chapter as opposed to other lower class groups in the book of mormon? To my knowledge I beleive this is the only time that the word dross is used in the Book of Mormon, but I could be wrong on that. But if it used in other places could it some how be related becuase it is not used very much? I ask about the silver because that was used in the term dross and seperating the impure silver shavings from the fine silver. I agree with you Joe, that the rich think that they are the exhalted ones. How does that come about? Are they ones that were once faithful and got rich and became prideful and started to look down on those who did not have money. I think of the comment that Brigham Young said, I do not know it exactly but I will summerize, my biggest fear of the saints is that they will became rich and fat and send themselves strait to hell. Are we on the same path of the zormites? This begining of the chapter all to well describes behavior that still goes on. But it is all in the heart of the person, a man can be poor but if all he thinks of is how to gain riches than he is rich in his heart and the circumstances of being poor are have no effect on his spirit. Also a man may have the circumstances of being rich and in his heart he is poor and humble and he can do much good. Or he can be rich and be so poor spiritually that no worldly thing never seems enough to be enough for the person. These are just some thoughts that I wanted to get out. Joe do you happen to know the significance of silver if any in acient times? I'm sure there is but I am not sure what it may be.--Jeff Batt 04:25, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

The word "dross" shows up one other time in the Book of Mormon: Alma 34:29. Amulek is speaking there, but on the very same occasion as the present verse. After Alma speaks, Amulek does. What is interesting is that here the historian uses the word "dross," not Alma. It may be that the historian, knowing Amulek's subsequent use of the word, used this word carefully just before the beginning of the discourse so that it would anticipate Amulek's use and open up a sort of irony. I say irony because here the poor Zoramites are explicitly considered as dross. Amulek later tells the Zoramite poor that if they do not remember to be charitable, they will be dross. Amulek's language works on the presupposition that they are not dross, but that they will become dross if they are like the rich Zoramites. Curious irony: those who consider the poor dross are, in the fact, dross themselves. Rather an interesting thing. Other instances of "dross" in the scripture: Ezek 22:18-19 (where it is clear that dross is just other metals, such as brass, tin, and so forth, and the Lord promises to purify Jerusalem by burning out the wicked Israelites), Isa 1:22, 25 (where much the same as Ezekiel's passage is said, in the summary introduction to Isaiah), and three passages in the Psalms and Proverbs (none of which bear a great deal on the meaning here).

As to silver, it shows up a great many times in the scriptures (381 times, apparently). The great majority of Old Testament references describe monetary exchange (csph, the Hebrew word for silver, derivatively means simply "cash," since silver was the most common form of exchange), but there are a few other instances of note. Joseph's divining cup was made of silver, and a great deal of silver was used in the making of the tabernacle and temple, most interestingly for the two trumpets with which the assembly was called to the temple festivals. Idols are often made of silver, though this is probably not a condemnation of the metal. Ps 12:6 compares the word of the Lord to silver, tried seven times in the fire. Perhaps the most significant passage mentioning silver in the OT is Mal 3:3: "And he shall sit as a refiner and purifer of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness." The importance of this passage in the Book of Mormon is quite clear, since it shows up in 3 Ne 24:3. As for the Book of Mormon, only Alma 31:24 seems to be of significance, since Alma there sees that the hearts of the Zoramites were specifically set upon silver. I don't know if another irony is supposed to be at work there, but there is at least the hint of irony. Outside of scripture, it might at least be noticed that silver is a natural antibiotic, one used for centuries before any of the modern ones were discovered (though I don't know that the ancients used silver in this way--my guess is that this began with the alchemists). Anyway, that might help, Jeff. --Joe Spencer 13:51, 17 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Joe. That helps alot. It is funny how those to think themselves higher than others usually are putting themselves actually lower than who they are putting down. This could also be compared to the wheat and the tares , could it not? Where if they do not watch themselves than they could become just as the tares. Here also lies how satan has lead astray the rich Zoramites leading them into a false sense of security thinking that all is well and that they are the rightous. Just as the time of Christ. Coming into the first verses of this chapter I wondered how much I would learn out of it. I am surprised on how much I have. Thanks--Jeff Batt 04:40, 24 Oct 2006 (UTC)--67.40.112.79 04:39, 24 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Poor in Heart

Matthew, I like the exegesis you've added on "poor in heart." How do you think this phrase connects up with the question of compelled humility vs. voluntary (?) humility? Any thoughts? --Joe Spencer 17:14, 12 February 2007 (CET)

I too find this interesting, esp. b/c the phrases "poor in spirit" (Matt 5:3 and 3 Ne 12:3) and "lowly in heart" both seem to have strictly positive connotations. And my sense is that "poor in heart" is basically what Alma is referring to in subsequent verses when he talks about those who are compelled to be humble.... --RobertC 03:35, 13 February 2007 (CET)

Here are some thoughts on contrasting poor in spirit, poor in heart and lowly in heart:

	Poor in spirit	Poor in heart	Lowly in heart
Usage suggests it is a virtue (a quality we should seek)?	No (controversial)	No	Yes Matt 11:29, Alma 37:34
Leads to something positive?	Yes	Yes	Yes
Usage suggests something negative about it?	No	Yes	No
Other scriptures provide additional insight to meaning?	No	No	Yes

I agree that poor in heart is the description of the people compelled to be humble. In other words I see them as the same except that one is describing the process (compelled to be humble) and the other is describing the result (poor in heart).

One interesting thing about poor in heart is that in both uses we find it along side "poverty as to the things of this world." Here's how I read verse 3:

Therefore they were not permitted to enter into their synagogues to worship God,

being esteemed as filthiness;

therefore they were poor;

(Verse 2 says they were poor meaning poor materially. Now Mormon tells us that because they weren't permitted to go into the synagogue and because they were seen as filthy in their community they really were poor. (I read the phrase "therefore they were poor" with an emphasis on "were." Mormon hasn't yet explained what he means by poor but it is clear that he is no longer simply referring to the lack of material wealth. Now Mormon launches into a bit more explanation of what he means which is really a restatement of what he has already told us--as if to emphasize that the answer was there! )

yea, they were esteemed by their brethren as dross; therefore they were poor as to things of the world; and also they were poor in heart.

(So now Mormon names this "poorness" to distinguish it from material poverty as "poor in heart.")

Here's why I think poorness of heart is to esteem oneself as less than others around you: because it is always used together with material poverty--a concept almost always used in comparison, rather than related to an absolute concept of wealth.

Under this interpretation, Alma is so careful to not overly praise their humility (see Alma 32:14) because it isn't really the right humility. It is humility related to the other people in society when it should be humility related to God.

So this is a long way of going about it (and I'm not there yet) but I'd like to be able to finally tie this back to the beatitudes and the related thread on our blog.

In the end I'd like to make a case that poor in spirit means pretty much the same thing as poor in heart. Under that interpretation Matt 5:3 is another example of the first being last and the last being first--those on the bottom rung of society now, those who own nothing in this world, are going to own all of heaven.

--Matthew Faulconer 06:17, 14 February 2007 (CET)

Nephite Politics

In trying to write some further commentary on the first verses here, I'm struck by how broad a take on the political situation of the Nephites really is necessary here. I'd really like to explore the theme of Nephite politics more generally, but I'm not sure how to go about that... especially in the wiki format. What can be said, at least for now, about the political situation here? --Joe Spencer 19:41, 17 October 2007 (CEST)

On Waters and Testing

Sean, I think there is a nice tradition to this point (and it is in the rules, I believe) that if you cut anything from the commentary page, it should be posted, at least in the meanwhile, to the discussion page to give other contributors the opportunity to discuss it, etc. Just cutting whole paragraphs is not a very... respectful?... practice. I'm less concerned about what was cut here—I'll confess that it was rather speculative, but I'll confess just as much that I was struck by the curious phrasing and still think it deserves more careful attention than the comment you've replaced it with admits—than I am about what was cut of Sterling's questions on the first verses of 1 Nephi 1. To cut a question without providing any answers seems, quite simply, to be counterproductive on a site we are trying to flesh out more and more. I really think the project is better served by production rather than reduction: writing up a few paragraphs of good commentary is far more important than cutting out a few questions that seem irrelevant or some such thing.

I'm trying to write this as kindly as I can, knowing that we've differed on opinions before. And I hope you know that my intentions are the best—I realize, of course, that your intentions are the best as well—but I am concerned that "cleaning up" the project is far less productive than adding great commentary or building things up. I don't know to what extent I speak for the entire community here, but it seems to me that the site will be far more helpful for visitors if there is something to be read, albeit occasionally poorly worded or confusingly written or speculatively exploratory, than if there is almost nothing to be read, even if what does appear is perfectly responsible, etc. It would be far more productive to move something less than perfect to a discussion page with a few comments about why it doesn't seem appropriate or with a few questions about its appropriateness than simply to cut it from the commentary section entirely as a kind of test. I think, to be honest, that it would not only be more productive, but more charitable and more engaging (I'd rather be told a hundred times why my thinking on something is wrong than to have one of my ideas simply dismissed without explanation... and I imagine many others feel the same way).

I hope you see where I'm coming from. You are right that not everything is fit for the commentary pages. But please move these kinds of things to the discussion pages so that we as a community can think about things rather than simply deleting material that might prove to be of greater interest to everyone than one individual might suspect. It is, I believe, a simple matter of patience and longsuffering. --Joe Spencer 05:54, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

Joe, as for this page, I did not consider myself to be deleting the content, but to be correcting it, albeit, the final product was much shorter. I intentionally tried to leave some idea of "why" the content was changed. It was shorter, precisely because commentary is not supposed to consist of a simple retelling of what the verse already said. I felt my clarification partook somewhat of that, and as such, ought to be only long enough to serve as a clarification/exegesis. If you feel the alternative viewpoint had more merit than I suspected, the old material is very much available for you to frame a discussion around.

I'll have to take another look at the rules. I don't recall seeing what you suggest in there, while "Unsubstantiated commentary or speculation" and "Restatement or summary of text" (Help:Commentary pages) have been an unfortunate plague. There have also been some "Tendentious or leading questions", which would account for some of my question alterations. I did delete some questions, however. If you feel some of the questions I deleted had more merit than I gave them, I'd be curious to hear about it.

I don't think a blanket "never delete before going to committee" policy would be a good idea. It makes clean-up very hard, and contrary to common belief, bad content on a site can be almost as bad as no content. When editing wikis, I generally have a "when in doubt ask for advice policy" and usually I will also leave a comment explaining my edits. However, I have found that's not always a good idea, and in this case I wanted to gauge whether or not there would be a reaction rather than asking that my work be validated.

I got chewed out one time on wikipedia for changing "Sidney Rigdon was excommunicated in absentia" to "Sidney Rigdon did not attend his excommunication trial" and then posting my thoughts on why the change was important. I was told that my change was meaningless and that in the future I should just make changes and see if anybody undoes them before starting a discussion. I disagree, but I think it's certainly sometimes the thing to do. It is not always wrong to edit without discussion, though it is not always right to do so. It's all very political. Now, clearly I've upset you, and that's unfortunate, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on this matter of editing policy. I personally think that although there are a number of pages that could use more content, that we should not have our hands tied when looking to edit the content of others. A wiki is not a soap box for the common editor. I can edit you, and you can edit me, (not that I'm aware that I've edited you here) and to some extent we have to learn to get along together despite that sometimes offensive reality.

In my mind, I have made a rather good edit. You are welcome to respectfully disagree, but if so, you might do well to start a discussion on the merits of the excised/altered content rather than on how editing content is disrespectful. --Seanmcox 11:11, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

Sean, I guess there are two points to make. First, as regards the content removed from this page particularly, and second, as regards the general "philosophy" of the site.

You edited two comments on this page, and I'll agree that one of them was edited down quite nicely, that it simply restated what is already said in the text itself, etc. But the other comment hardly restated the meaning of the text but offered what I at least think was an interesting insight into a curiously placed "therefore." While the commentary that was there before raised a question about the oddity of the placement and reflected on possible meanings, the replacement states rather dogmatically that Alma simply means a certain thing (that is, it ignores the difficulty of the text). I assumed that this change was a deliberate deletion of the engagement of the problem, but perhaps you simply misread the commentary? If the latter, my apologies for sounding somewhat accusatory: I don't mean to accuse at all, but to promote a profounder sense of community.

Which leads nicely into the second point, one I think we've covered before: I feel that the wiki is more essentially a community than a production. As much merit as there may be in comparing Feast to, say, Wikipedia, the fact of the matter is that we're simply nothing like them. Wikipedia has millions of hits a day, thousands upon thousands of edits a day, and speaks to a global audience. We have five or six regular contributors and very few hits a day. We speak only to a rather small potential community (online English-speaking Latter-day Saints), and very few of these are at all interested in the project. Presentation is certainly a concern, but I don't think it's our primary concern. The more there is a community and discussion among us, the more productive this project will be, but reductive edits and simple deletions promote frustration and weariness.

So I'll concede you the points you made for any other wiki, but I don't think they apply here. This is a fundamentally different project. It would be well for you to watch how conversations tend to happen among other contributors. Usually if someone makes a comment that is quite straightforwardly in contradiction of the rules—say, someone just relates a personal experience in the commentary page for a given text—it has been our practice traditionally to move the comment to the discussion page with an explanation of why it doesn't work on the commentary page and with an invitation not to be discouraged but to continue helping. If someone writes commentary that is somewhat speculative or flat-out wrong, usually we will make a comment on the discussion page asking for clarification or reasoning, suggesting that if no one else is bothered by it, it will be moved to the discussion page. But simply deleting the material is not something we do. Less effective? Less productive? Downright obnoxious? Perhaps. I'll agree with you. But I believe that is part of dealing with community, and I at least (but I think I speak for most everybody here) think that maintaining a contributing and thinking community here is far more important than having a bunch of commentary pages with only a sentence or two that can be vindicated because it is unquestionably "correct."

So, upset? No. Concerned, rather: I'm afraid that simple deletions like these will drive away contributors, will lead to so little activity that Matthew will finally give up and remove the project. Offended personally? Not at all. I'm actually quite happy to have someone disagree with me. But I think it is worth saying that deletion is not disagreement.

So let me conclude by responding quite directly to your last statement: "In my mind, I have made a rather good edit. You are welcome to respectfully disagree, but if so, you might do well to start a discussion on the merits of the excised/altered content rather than on how editing content is disrespectful." The writers of what you have deleted should very well be saying much the same thing to you: you are, Sean, quite welcome to disagree respectfully, but if so, you might do well to start a discussion on the unmerits of the content rather than simply deleting it. I personally chose to engage you personally ("to start a discussion . . . on how editing content is disrespectful," though I think this way of phrasing it misses my point almost entirely: it is not editing that is disrespectful, but deletion of thoughtful content without any discussion of it) because I would rather settle our theoretical differences so as to promote the betterment of the project than quibble over this or that particular edit. Again, my focus is on the community. Please, please, please edit content. But do so more productively: if you have nothing to put in its place but you feel it is not appropriate for the commentary page, move it to the discussion page so that it can be subject to review.

But I feel, and I really think I've got all the archons of the wiki behind me on this, that deletion without discussion is, except in cases such as spam, etc., counterproductive. If that makes this project too exasperating, I apologize, but such is every community I've ever been a part of. What is marvelous is that a community still, despite such frustrations, produces far better and far more abundant work than a single individual.

Again, I hope the spirit of my comments is not misunderstood: I'm doing all I can (1) to promote the community that is this project and (2) to invite you to play a part in that community. You have every right to disagree, and you have every right, int he end, simply to delete everything everyone else writes as commentary. But I hope you see how much more productive we can be if we engage in discussion rather than production. --Joe Spencer 15:22, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

"But the other comment hardly restated the meaning of the text but offered what I at least think was an interesting insight into a curiously placed 'therefore.'" The "therefore" was hardly curious, except in, perhaps, a rhetorical sense. It made perfect logical sense and since there seemed to be some unnecessary confusion surrounding it, I made clarification. I would think my reading would be vindicated by the analysis done here under "Poor in Heart". I would be very curious to see a vindication of the previous reading, for it seemed to be unfounded. I do not see myself as having deleted an engagement of a problem. I see myself as having wrapped up the problem with a nice conclusion. If I misread things, you'll have to show me how.

"As much merit as there may be in comparing Feast to, say, Wikipedia, the fact of the matter is that we're simply nothing like them." Nothing like them? You're both wikis. Even Wikipedia has this "profound sense of community". Wikis were invented with this "profound sense of community" in mind. Scale is largely irrelevant. Content type is largely irrelevant. Being fastidious about asking permission or getting buy-in in order to make changes to others' contributions has not proven to be fundamental to the community, but rather a sometimes good practice, and sometimes unnecessary, and even ill-advised.

To promote the "profound sense of community" over some basic content quality, in effect, is to promote unity around a false principle. If we are to be a community, I suggest we best be a community that is unified around something nearer to quality and learning, rather than simply endless debate and speculation. I personally have, in the past, liked to promote this site, but as it becomes more and more cluttered with speculation and, at times, nonsense, I find myself having to qualify my endorsements with statements such as "Great resource. Go and add any insights you might have, but be careful because some of the people are a little off the deep end and there's a lot of junk to wade through." I suppose perhaps that might be considered amusing to some, but to me it is tragic that a community that has so much potential as this one has, should be rendered of questionable value by this clutter of people trying to work out their dubious ideas in what is really public space. To me, it is precisely this reluctance to delete which has led to this problem. If we have any kind of standards for the content here, then we ought to make them clear. Instead we make them soft and pliable, so that all standards become words only with no effect. (Excepting that unwritten rule that we be tolerant of all contributions.) Contrary to popular belief, if you set standards and enforce them clearly, you will not only lose contributor, but will gain. If your standards are good and reasonable (and the standards here are well written, even if to no affect) you will gain greatly.--Seanmcox 18:50, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

Sean, here's the thing. Joe and I and some others are trying to start a group project on Alma 32. But of our group, only Joe has experience at all with writing for wiki's. It is, in fact, discouraging when you undo our work. This page may not look pretty while we're still working on it, but honestly, who cares? No one knows about this website yet. So won't you just let us do our work in the corner? --Mjberkey 19:23, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

I can understand that. Having done a lot of wiki editing myself, however, I'm not sure how what I did is properly an undoing rather than a contribution. I'm perfectly willing to let you guys work things out though if you feel the need to do so without my involvement. How long do you anticipate this exclusivity to last? --Seanmcox 19:38, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

I personally would appreciate it if you did refrain from cleaning this chapter until we are done. I think we plan to work on this project for a couple of months. But after that, I think there's been some talk of publishing what we finish to gather more attention for this wiki. At that point, it will be more important that everything be conformed to the standards.--Mjberkey 21:02, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

Let me first say that I'm going to differ here with Mike to some degree: I'd rather you tamper all you can with the page while we're working on this project. I don't want it to become a group project limited to a few selected people, but the idea of taking the work at least in part to the wiki was to encourage others to contribute, others who were not part of the group. So I very much would appreciate your contributions. But I think Mike is right in saying that it is incredibly discouraging when one of the first comments you make in hopes of helping or contributing is simply deleted without so much as an explanation. So: please join us! But please contribute, edit, discuss, and build, rather than tear down or delete.

Now, to your direct responses. First, the comment was picking up on an oddity of phrasing. I'm not sure how the verse does not sound awkward in English to you, but it plainly does to me. Such oddity calls for comment, for thought. The thought that was articulated was that this awkwardness, if it is taken literally, suggests that there is something more to the meaning of the word "poor" as it is employed in the verse. That is of some interest. If someone disagrees, it is easy enough to write an addition to the commentary such as, "Or it might simply be that the later part of the phrase clarifies this quite straightforwardly, etc." Or, it could simply be removed to the discussion page with the briefest of comments: "Doesn't this seem a bit speculative?" Or even one can just make a brief comment on the discussion page without doing any editing at least to see whether everyone else thinks this bit of commentary is remarkably naive or silly: "That bit of commentary seems to me far too subtle and obscure. Is it worth making this point?" Etc. So, have you misread things? To be honest, I'm not sure, precisely because you have deleted without engagement. I can't tell whether you've misunderstood something, simply thought it to be unnecessary, taken it as speculative, or what? This is precisely why I'm calling for engagement over spring-cleaning. A move from the commentary page to the discussion page accomplishes the same level of presentation, if that is something that is ultimately so essential (I'm still not convinced it is), but without simply shutting down the community.

As for the remainder of your response, I think I have to articulate my response somewhat theoretically, because it seems like it is a subtle point on which we won't agree. It almost seems to me that you approach the wiki from a kind of capitalistic standpoint while I approach from a kind of Marxist standpoint: you are entirely concerned with the face it presents, with its purchasability, while I am entirely concerned with its role as a place for engagement with others. Matthew has said before, and I agree, that both of these views are legitimate: I think the presentation of the site is important, in the long run. But I do not—nor will I ever—think that the presentation of the site is more important somehow than the engagement that is thinking together about the scriptures. I'd like to be shown otherwise, but it seems to me that you are entirely given to presentation, that you care nothing for the collective engagement. I really hope that's not the case, but I can't make sense of your way of handling things otherwise.

Which is what brings to me to what has been, among those on the Feast project, a kind of compromise between the two visions: the existence of the discussion page. So that the community is not abrogated, so that people feel quite free to contribute, so that they do not feel censured, so that they will come and fill up this wiki with their insights and ideas, we do all we can to accommodate their contributions. What I'm asking for is not a personal favor, nor do I want to set up any kind of exclusivity surrounding any particular text. What I'm asking for is a recognition that not everyone is here for the same reasons you are, that not everyone recommends this site to their friends for the same reasons you do, that not everyone thinks about scriptures and doctrines and speculation and so forth as you do, and so, for you to be a bit more patient and longsuffering with people who are trying honestly to think through the scriptures, though they may not do it in the same way you do.

Does this make sense? --Joe Spencer 22:37, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

"it is incredibly discouraging when one of the first comments you make in hopes of helping or contributing is simply deleted without so much as an explanation."

This is not what I did. The reworking was an explanation. It was, you might say, the answer to the question.

"if it is taken literally, suggests that there is something more to the meaning of the word "poor" as it is employed in the verse."

Correct, and I assessed something "more" to the meaning of the word "poor". If you mean something more than that something more, then you're more than welcome to suggest what more that more might be. The phrase is interesting rhetorically, and might well be considered odd. In a way, it might even seem awkward, from a certain point of view.

If you wish to "engage" with me about the text, please do. The text is not gone forever. It still exists. You can easily go and find it and paste it here for a discussion if you think it merits such a discussion. --Seanmcox 23:50, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

I'm going to have to stop engaging you on all points to make quite clear the only one that matters, and the one that you seem quite intent on not responding to: will you or will you not please move things to discussion pages rather than delete things? Robert has nicely caught that this is the thrust of the entire discussion: I really don't care, as I've said repeatedly, about a few deletions, but about the lack of charity evidenced by it and the potential effect on newcomers, which has already been confirmed. Whether or not you so understand it is immaterial: I'm asking whether or not we can agree on a policy.

So answer only this one question, please: will you agree to that practice? You will never have to have another silly conversation like this with me again, and I will never have to have another silly conversation like this with you again, and we can all get on with the far more important work of thinking these remarkable texts. Agreed? At all? --Joe Spencer 05:27, 21 October 2007 (CEST)

Toward a policy...

I think there's a lot underlying the differing views here, and I'm afraid I don't have the time to get very involved in the discussion. I will say, however, that I think it's a good policy to move things that are deleted to the discussion page, preferably giving at least a brief explanation as to why. Except for rare exceptions, this has been the convention we've followed around here, and I don't see a convincing reason to change it. I thought that there were several interesting questions posted by Sterling that were deleted, so I think I'll go back and at least resurrect them, at least to a discussion page.... --RobertC 23:05, 20 October 2007 (CEST)