Last modified on June 29, 2012, at 22:37

Talk:John the Baptist

Return to "John the Baptist" page.
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

Anti-religious propaganda:

  • Accepting the visit of Gabriel to Elizabeth and the dream of Zacharias, there was nothing unusual or supernatural connected with the birth of John the Baptist.

"These things were talked about" all over the place, because among other things Zecharias had been struck dumb for disbelieving the angel; he only regained his power of speech after the birth of his son and writing his name on a tablet; he and has wife were too old to have children; etc. --Ed Poor 07:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Where do we get the information on the visit of John's family to see Jesus in 1 B.C.? Thanks Learn together 14:23, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Post-Mortal Ministry Addition

Anyone care to explain why my cited information was removed? I'll wait about a day or so for a response before putting it back up. Jinkas 09:30, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

It was removed because the information you put is only believed by the Mormon Church and is not a part of the Bible or 2000 years of Christian tradition and is rejected by the body of Christianity. Merely citing a source does not mean it should stated as fact for readers who would not know any better.
Crocoite, I am surprised you reverted and protected as the usual protocol is for the old version to stay if new edits are rejected until a concensus can be reached. You were brought in as a sysop because of your strong contributions, but if you are going to use your position to force in Mormon doctrine, then I think we'll have to have a ruling by Andy if this is the direction he wants conservapedia to go. It's your call. Learn together 11:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Don't be surprised. I'm not going to just let you revert edits from another Christian editor. There are about 13 million Mormons, and you don't get to impose your views without discussion. Take this to Andy if you wish. Crocoite Talk 11:21, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
But it's ok for the non-Christian view of Mormons to be imposed? That edit about "post mortality" needs to be removed, it has no basis in the Christian canon. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 11:28, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
"non-Christian view of Mormons"? I respectfully disagree. Crocoite Talk 11:46, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Trying to put in Mormon views as fact when no other Christian denomination believes it is inappropriate. I am surprised you have gone this direction. Learn together 11:32, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
I was very careful before I made the edit to read through the commandments and guidelines about editing here at Conservapedia. I didn't see anything that said that only mainstream Christian views can be presented as fact or that the Bible is the only religious text allowed to be cited as fact. If I missed something I would appreciate if someone could point it out to me so that I can make more appropriate edits in the future. Otherwise, why shouldn't my edit stand? Jinkas 11:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
This could probably all be easily solved by adding a "According to Mormonism" (or something similar) phrase to the begining of the statement, and noting afterward that this belief is rejected by mainstream Christianity. --Colest 12:03, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
And perhaps something like that would have occurred, but you chose to revert back to the questionable form and protect the article instead of allowing natural paths to be followed. That was unfortunate. Learn together 12:16, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
I realize you probably aren't reading the names of who is signing these posts closely, but please pay more attention, because I've done no such thing. I've simply stepped in and suggested what I feel is a reasonable compromise. Thank you. --Colest 12:22, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
If you did no such thing then why can't I edit the article? And how come the version that is frozen for readers is the one that the has the questionable edit? And isn't it your name that reverted that version back and then protected it less than 5 minutes later? I'm sorry Colest, but you chose this path. Learn together 12:34, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
My sincere apology to you my friend as I just realized how incredibly wrong I was. I will apologize on your home page as well, and I am sorry for any discomfort I caused by my very foolish oversight. :-( Learn together 13:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Colest != Crocoite Jinkas 12:37, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
While I'm flattered by the confusion, Jinkas speaks the truth. :) --Colest 13:00, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Presentation of information as fact that goes against all Christianity apart from the Mormon Church while putting it in a form that makes it seem like it is a natural part of John the Baptist is out of bounds. You are misleading readers, and that is inappropriate. Understand I'm not blaming you for your edit; we have all put things that have been reverted at one time or another. Learn together 12:07, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
How would it be misleading to readers to note what the Mormons believe? JoshuaZ 12:08, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Don't put words in my mouth. Only comment on what I put. You just changed the subject. Learn together 12:12, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
I'm not changing the subject, Colest's comment above suggests a compromise version in which we note the Mormon view and note that mainstream Christianity agrees. Your comment above in reply seems to be at odds with that. If it isn't, please say so. JoshuaZ 12:18, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
You should have looked who I was replying to. Please do so now. Learn together 12:38, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Um, you have four indents, right after Colests's three idents and the time stamp has you making your comment right after his comment. If you were commenting to Jinka or someone, please make it more clear in the future. JoshuaZ 13:10, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
I have 3 indents. Look, it's not hard to view the page and see where I line up. It's ok to say "sorry, my mistake" and move on. Learn together 18:56, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Edit conflict of saying the same thing as Colest. As long as it is clear who believes what, there shouldn't be an issue. JoshuaZ 12:05, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Seems to me this material goes uncorroborated by other than Joseph Smith, Jr. and Oliver Cowdery, who may have a conflict of interest, being that they are not only the subjects of the claim, but also it's only witnesses. Now the earlier citations are much stronger, that is to say, the evangelist Matthew is corroboated by three others, Mark, Luke and John. Also, Mark is corroborated by two others, Luke and John. And of course Luke than corroborates John. Likewise, John is corroborated by Matthew, Mark and Luke.
So, while the subject of the claim is similiar and coincidental, i.e. John the Baptist and matters of faith, in reality, Smith & Cowdery's claims may be considered somewhat questionable and their inclusion tends to distort the underlying evidence from the ancient manuscripts. RobS 12:13, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Irrelevant, the issue here is not what is historically correct but whether it is a notable minority viewpoint. We should note that the claim is made by the Mormons regardless of how much evidence we have for it. JoshuaZ 12:18, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
I disagree with this; the integrity of the older manuscripts based upon the weight of the evidence takes priority, and must be preserved. RobS 12:49, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
How does my edit conflict with or harm the integrity of the older manuscripts referenced in this article? My edit does not refute, deny, or even question any of the other information. At the very least it needs to be presented as a belief held by millions of people in the world, many of whom are conservatives and probably use this site. Jinkas 12:53, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
You tried to place an edit as fact that was greatly misleading. Even your suggestions below still appear to try to hide that what you are proposing goes against 2.1 billion Christians and is accepted only by the Mormon Church. In the future, any time Rob is involved, he has a very low tolerance for that type of slight of hand and will end the issue. Most editors on Conservapedia are respectful of Mormon belief and you are certainly welcome, but please do not try to merge thousands of years of Christian tradition with your beliefs and make them seem to be the same. Learn together 13:22, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
There is no slight of hand involved and I take offense at the suggestion that that was my intent. The information I presented in my edit is a belief held by a major religion. I can accept the general view that the information could have been presented differently, but removing it completely is not the correct solution. Either one of two things needs to happen: the information needs to be included using the suggested wording below, or a new commandment needs to be added to the effect of "only mainstream Christian views may be presented on pages having to do with historical Christian persons." Even the front page itself includes a reference to the fact that not all conservatives are Christians; maybe we need to include more information that just that which is pertinent to the mainstream denominations. Jinkas 13:25, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Learn Together, I have to respectfully disagree with you here. Granted, I agree with you that the phrasing of the original edit in question was not appropriate, however I don't understand how you can say the suggestions below try to infringe on Christian tradition. Properly stated as a Mormon belief, and not accepted by mainstream Christianity, the edit should be acceptable. If you are going to try to be respecful to Mormon Conservatives, I think completely removing their additions compeltely instead of working on how to incorporate it into the encyclopedia, is not the way to go about it. --Colest 13:34, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
But Jinkas didn't keep the section about not being accepted by mainstream Christianity. The edit he wanted to see was only
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that on May 15, 1829 A.D., the resurrected John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith, Jr. and Oliver Cowdery and conferred upon them the Aaronic Priesthood, which includes the authority to baptize.
Quite honestly Jinkas did the right thing originally when he saw I reverted him, which was to take it to talk to discuss. He's new and through discussion could probably have learned a better way to put things for the future. Unfortunately a sysop reverting back to the inappropriate edit and freezing the page changed the nature of the issue. Learn together 13:53, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't want to speak for him, but I believe he was refering to removing the statement of belief because the new subheading would be "Mormon Beliefs". I agree with your other points, though. --Colest 13:58, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Exactly. With the subheading of "Mormon Beliefs" and the qualifying statement at the beginning of the sentence, is it really necessary to point out yet again that mainstream Christianity doesn't hold the same view? If you want to distance the statement even further, then just add "Mainstream Christians do not subscribe to this view," or "Mainstream Christians do not hold this same belief," rather than "Mainstream Christianity does not take this claim seriously." I know it wasn't intended as such, but that third option just sounds mocking to me. Jinkas 14:03, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Jinkas, Let me bypass the external criticism of the source for now, and go to the stemmatics; the evidential value is a codicum outside the textus receptus. RobS 13:35, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Care to explain that in English? My Latin is a bit rusty. :-) Jinkas 13:37, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
That is the root of the problem. When we turn to internal criticism, we must examine credibility, which forces the question of historical reliability and eyewitness evidence which seems improbable. And there's still other schema we must complete, none of which this text prima facia thus far seems likely to endure. RobS 14:00, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
I understand this to be an argument for not presenting the information as fact, and I have already stated that perhaps I could have worded my initial edit differently. However, I don't see why this should keep the information from being presented on the page in a qualified form such as has been discussed here. Regardless of just how credible the sources may be, it is important to note that there are a large number of people who hold this belief about John the Baptist. Jinkas 14:09, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Suggested compromise wording

Suggest that we name the first section simply as "Ministry" and the new section labeled "Mormon Beliefs" and have it read "Mormons believe that on May 15, 1829 A.D., the resurrected John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith, Jr. and Oliver Cowdery and conferred upon them the Aaronic Priesthood, which includes the authority to baptize.[1] Mainstream Christianity does not take this claim seriously"

Perhaps a more appropriate change would be "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that on May 15, 1829 A.D., the resurrected John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith, Jr. and Oliver Cowdery and conferred upon them the Aaronic Priesthood, which includes the authority to baptize.[2]". I don't think the second sentence is necessary since the statement of belief is already qualified. Jinkas 12:23, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't have any strong preference to either version. JoshuaZ 13:10, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Compromise?

Why are we compromising over the basic tenets of our faith?? Mormonism is NOT Christianity! This isn't about "mainstream" Christianity and a divergent sect _ they are 2 completely different religions! [1][2]

  • IS THERE MORE THAN ONE TRUE GOD?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that there is only one True and Living God and apart from Him there are no other Gods (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10,11; 44:6,8; 45:21,22; 46:9; Mark 12:29-34). By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20; Gospel Principles, p. 245; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 130). It also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302).

  • 2. WAS GOD ONCE A MAN LIKE US?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that God is Spirit (John 4:24; 1 Timothy 6:15,16), He is not a man (Numbers 23:19; Hosea 11:9; Romans 1:22, 23), and has always (eternally) existed as God — all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present (Psalm 90:2; 139:7-10; Isaiah 40:28; Luke 1:37). By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man like us who progressed to become a God and has a body of flesh and bone (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347; Gospel Principles, p. 9; Articles of Faith, p. 430; Mormon Doctrine, p. 321). Indeed, the Mormon Church teaches that God himself has a father, and a grandfather, ad infinitum (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373; Mormon Doctrine, p. 577).

  • ARE JESUS AND SATAN SPIRIT BROTHERS?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that Jesus is the unique Son of God; he has always existed as God, and is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father (John 1:1, 14; 10:30; 14:9; Colossians 2:9). While never less than God, at the appointed time He laid aside the glory He shared with the Father (John 17:4, 5; Philippians 2:6-11) and was made flesh for our salvation; His incarnation was accomplished through being conceived supernaturally by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18-23; Luke 1:34-35). By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Jesus Christ is our elder brother who progressed to godhood, having first been procreated as a spirit child by Heavenly Father and a heavenly mother; He was later conceived physically through intercourse between Heavenly Father and the virgin Mary (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 129; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 546-547; 742). Mormon doctrine affirms that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers (Gospel Principles, pp. 17-18; Mormon Doctrine, p. 192).

  • IS GOD A TRINITY?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost are not separate Gods or separate beings, but are distinct Persons within the one Triune Godhead. Throughout the New Testament the Son and the Holy Spirit, as well as the Father are separately identified as and act as God (Son: Mark 2:5-12; John 20:28; Philippians 2:10,11; Holy Spirit: Acts 5:3,4; 2 Corinthians 3:17,18; 13:14); yet at the same time the Bible teaches that these three are only one God (see point 1). By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577), and that the Son and Holy Ghost are the literal offspring of Heavenly Father and a celestial wife (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 2, p. 649).

  • IS THE BIBLE THE UNIQUE AND FINAL WORD OF GOD?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that the Bible is the unique, final and infallible Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:1,2; 2 Peter 1:21) and that it will stand forever (1 Peter 1:23-25). God’s providential preservation of the text of the Bible was marvelously illustrated in the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that the Bible has been corrupted, is missing many "plain and precious parts" and does not contain the fullness of the Gospel (Book of Mormon — 1 Nephi 13:26-29; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 190-191).


Christian churches teach belief in God as an eternal, self-existent, immortal being, unfettered by corporeal limitations and unchanging in both character and nature. In recent years, several Christian denominations have made studies of Mormon teaching and come to the conclusion that there are irreconcilable differences between LDS doctrine and Christian beliefs based on the Bible.

faithfulness to the teaching of the first apostles —not the creation of new doctrines.")

From BeliefNet: "Mormonism is an entirely different religion. For instance, Mormonism believes in many gods, not just one. Christians believe that God is eternal and is a spirit. Mormons believe that the god of this universe - like other gods in other universes - was once as we are. God "progressed" in knowledge and became divine, but retained his body."

From Apologetics Index: "The teachings and practices of the Mormon Church contradict those of historic, Biblical Christianity, Mormons can not be considered to be Christians, nor can the Mormon Church be described as a Christian denomination."

"No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith."

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY: "Is Mormonism Christian?" is a very important question. The answer is equally important and simple. No. Mormonism is not Christian."

File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

This really serves no purpose. This debate was already had on the Template talk page, and the arguement here has long since passed (or atleast should have) whether or not Mormonism is accepted by Christianity. At this point, we should be arguing about the best way to include the fact that Mormon's believe in John the Baptist's reincarnation. If you check the mainpage, in response to the LA Times article, you will see an open invitation to non-Christian conservatives. Seems to me we have atleast 2 editors who are Mormon (non-Christian in your estimate) and conservative. Including a statement, such as the suggestions above which directly state it as a belief of LDS, in no way implies Mormonism=Christianity. And even if you think it does, why can't you just let the reader make that decision on their own? --Colest 15:25, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
I'm not here to get involved about whether or not mainstream Christians consider Mormons to be Christians. However, I would like to note that nearly all of what you posted is lifted verbatim from a copyrighted article here without giving proper credit (unless I missed it somewhere). The basic point of the matter, as I see it, is that this is Conservapedia, not Christianopedia--this resource nowhere purports to be a presentation of purely mainstream Christian doctrine. John the Baptist's role(s) is(are) viewed differently by different religions and I feel this is important to note on his page, especially for those students who may visit this page as part of a research project. Jinkas 15:28, 28 June 2007 (EDT)


No, the debate wasn't held there - it took place in emails/IMs between 2 or 3 sysops. As for the specific issue at hand, it is about mormon editor's hijacking and locking the article. AS for copy/pasting, that info is from several articles, all of which are attached by the links. Stop trying to blow smoke over the main issue File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:32, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Obviously, Fox, there are multiple issues here. I agree that the article was hastily locked. However, that's an issue for the administrators of this site to deal with, which neither you nor I are. What is escaping me here, is why there seems to be such dissent against properly qualifying the statement by saying "According to LDS" or something similar. I do not think a statement as such hijacks the thread. --Colest 15:42, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

SYSOP/Admin Conservative was asked to weigh in regarding John the Baptist and Mormonism

I was asked by two editors to weigh in. I think if the Mormon claim is put in then it should have a citation and it should clearly be stated as a Mormon belief. I also believe that counter objections should be included and cited. I also have no objection to it being stated that several Christian groups do not consider Mormonism to be a part of Christianity with appropriate citations. I have no objection to it being included with the caveats I aforely mentioned. Conservative 16:08, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate the input. I was just curious if you feel like this part "I also have no objection to it being stated that several Christian groups do not consider Mormonism to be a part of Christianity with appropriate citations," is really appropriate on the John the Baptist page. It seems relevant to more than just the John the Baptist information and is already included in the entry for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Counter objections to the Mormon view of John the Baptist should be included here, but would whole arguments about the Christianity of Mormons be beyond the scope of this specific page? Jinkas 16:13, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Merely saying "Mainstream Christians do not believe this to be true" is insufficient. It gives the idea that Mormonism is part of Christianity but not part of "mainstream Christianity". And given the strong words of several large Christian groups that someone cited above that Mormonism is not part of Christianity and given the fact that nobody cited any large Christian groups stating that Mormonism is part of Christianity I see the "mainstream Christianity" suggestion posted above to be problematic. I also suggest looking at my edits regarding Christian groups that say Mormonism that I put in the Mormonism article. By the way, we do not have to cite all the Christian groups we can merely use footnotes to do the job. Conservative 18:39, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Please see my compromise position below (see: Mormon beliefs section below). Conservative 18:46, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Mormon Beliefs

As per Conservative's opinion above, I have added the Mormon Beliefs section to the article page. I feel that both the views of Mormons and other Christians have been fairly presented. Someone else will need to add a citation for other Christian denominations not accepting the Mormon belief. Jinkas 16:20, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Jinka's your material does not meet the Conservapedia commandments. The commandments state that you must give your sources. You wrote: "No other Christian denomination holds this belief." I have two objections. The lack of a citation first of all. And secondly, such a phrase indicates that Mormonism is a Christian denomination. And you give no citation or support that Mormonism is a Christian denomination. Therefore, I think a compromise position is to removed the uncited portion. Conservative 18:45, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

I have put "This view is unique to Mormonism" at the end of the section, which should avoid the question of whether or not Mormonism fits within the fold of Christianity. Hopefully that works for everyone. Learn together 19:12, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

That is a redundant and uncited statement - the section is titled "Mormon beliefs". Crocoite Talk 19:22, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Beliefs can have varying degrees of commonality. While it is possible for a belief to be unique, that is not true in all cases. This makes it clear. The section has no need to be cited any more than a view that pink elephants walk on the moon has to be cited as being unique. The burden that some other group agrees with the view of your church, is on your church. Learn together 19:46, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Other

I noticed there was a lot of "other" material in there, which was non-canonical/biblical. From his circumcision until the age of 30, the bible says only, "And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel." (Luke 1:80) I don't know who put the childhood tales in there, but they don't belong. Also, his age is stated quite clearly in scripture as being around 6 months older than Jesus Christ, not six years. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 19:33, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

THIS IS FOR ALL OF YOU, SYSOPS AND "HELPERS"

This crap needs to end. "Conservative" or any Sysop, has no more standing, no more influence than I do. All of you stop running to the "teacher" and tattling. Learn to discuss and work things out, without calling someone to lock it up!

If you any of you wish to remain here, and be active, you need to learn to cooperate and compromise. And compromise doesn't mean what you think is fair, it means something mutually agreeable to all parties. Is that clear? Is it very clear to all of you? Fox, if you do not stop bullying people you will find yourself once more blocked by me, and if you get mad once again, and resign, I will guarantee you will not be allowed back. No more drama, from anyone, no more threats! This all ends now. If I see any further displays of this kind of behaviour, you will be blocked.

There wasn't anything happening here that needed every one's immediate attention, and instant reversal. The behavior is very strongly trollish.

While this wiki is Conservative and Christian friendly, per Andy, that doesn't mean it is a Bible Wiki, or a fundamentalist wiki. There are several of those. The material added about the Mormons is totally appropriate, and explains something important to those using this encyclopedia. While some may not agree with including any information about the LDS church, that doesn't serve the purpose of an encyclopedia. And this is an encyclopedia. Now, re-examine your motives and attitudes, all of you. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:37, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

I would recommend adding a version of this section to the Sysop pages. Crocoite 10:22, 29 June 2007 (EDT)


Discussion: Current errors

Proposed sections for alteration: please add to discussion

  • "John's birth fulfilled the promise of the angel Gabriel to Elizabeth in June of the previous year."
    • Bible: Gabriel visited Zacharias in the temple, not Elisabeth Luke 1:8-13
  • "For five months Elizabeth kept secret the angel's visitation and when she finally told her husband, Zacharias, he was greatly troubled and fully believed her narrative only after he had an unusual dream about six weeks before the birth of John. Zacharius was struck dumb (unable to speak), until John was born."
    • Bible: Zacharias was struck dumb by Gabriel to chide him for his doubt; he had no dreams considered unusual enough to merit an entry in Scripture Luke 1:18-20
  • "He grew up as an ordinary boy in the small village known as the City of Judah, about four miles west of Jerusalem. The most eventful occurrence in John's early childhood was the visit, in company with his parents, to Jesus and the Nazareth family. This visit occurred in the month of June, 1 B.C., when he was a little over six years of age. After their return from Nazareth John's parents began the systematic education of the lad. There was no synagogue school in their little village. However since Zacharias was a priest and fairly well educated, and Elizabeth was far better educated than the average Judean woman, being one of the priesthood and being a descendant of the "daughters of Aaron." As John was an only child, they spent a great deal of time on his mental and spiritual training. Zacharias had only short periods of service at the temple in Jerusalem so that he devoted much of his time to teaching his son."
    • Bible: All that the bible tells us about John between the age of 8 days and 30 years is "And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel." Luke 1:80; also, how can he have been 6 years old in 1 BC when Elisabeth was only 6 months pregnant at the time of the Annunciation to Mary? Luke 1:36 An earlier version also included the "born 6 years before Jesus" idea, but that wasn't saved in the most recent reversion. Elisabeth was not "one of the priesthood" - there were only male priests. Also, to discuss Zacharias' temple duties and Elisabeth's education is pure speculation; the Bible tells us nothing of this, and Zacharias' duties as a priest, while recorded in the Jewish canon (ie, the burning of incense was carried out during Tamid, the evening sacrifice) are not detailed in the Bible either.
  • Current version omits the visit of Mary to Elisabeth while they are both pregnant, one of the most important aspects of the narrative, with John leaping in the womb at the sound of Mary's voice, and Elisabeth coining the phrase: "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." Luke 1:40-42

File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 07:40, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

And a brief scan of the contributions of the person who wrote most of the above, User:Vossy, shows that they were deliberately inserted errors. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 08:09, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
I concur. When I first added information to the article more than a month ago, I was tenative about changing other contributors information. Since then I've learned more about imbedded vandalism where a contributor mixes fact and fiction to make Conservapedia look bad and be unreliable as a source. This is almost certainly one of those cases. Learn together 09:42, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

The easy way to deal with this is something I recommended early on at Wikipedia - when I was one of only several dozen active contributors:

  • Attribute each statement to its source, instead of stating it as a fact. For example, say X said Y about Z.
    Methodist Bible commentator Moody D. White said that John the Baptist's birth fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi.
    Unification Church doctrine teaches that John was the "second coming" of Elijah.
    The mainstream Christian view is that John was very humble.

Notice that at no point do these statements endorse any of the three views. The sample text I've provided merely states what each view is, without saying whether any of them is correct or incorrect.

Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe". --Ed Poor Talk 15:41, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

  • Exactly so, Ed. And I want to remind everyone, when reading the above I am still seeing hate. It is not your place, any of you, to judge who inserted what, and why. Stop with personal attacks, until and unless you can prove to me you are a mentalist, and can read people's minds, keep the charges of intent to emails or IM, but leave them off these pages. I am serious about the blocking of users who continue to do such things. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:36, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
  • ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 13
  • ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 13