User:COGDEN

NOTE: I'm essentially back from Wikiholiday, although my focus for the year 2005 is somewhat narrower than what it was in 2003-2004. I'm generally very pleased with how the articles on my watchlist are progressing, and I will focus mainly gradually adding substance to a few select articles.

Contents

1 My comments and observations regarding the Wikipedia 2 Wikipedia contributions 2.1 General interests 2.2 Articles in which I have the most significant investment or present interest 2.3 A few of the more interesting or potentially interesting articles I created and wish to see improved by others 2.4 My images 3 Educational background 4 Career path 5 Personal life 6 Disclosure of political views 6.1 Mormonism and the Democratic party 6.2 Thoughts about the invasion of Iraq 6.3 Favorite anti-war quotes 6.4 Separation between church and state

My comments and observations regarding the Wikipedia

• I view the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy as a process, rather than a destination. A Wikipedia article is never finished, and it is one of the reasons why Wikipedia as a whole will always be a better approximation to neutrality than any other encyclopedia.
• Under the present NPOV policy, no substantive information should ever be deleted from the Wikipedia. Either the information should be rewritten in a more NPOV form, or it should be moved to a more appropriate article, but never erased entirely. Thus, under the present NPOV policy, the following are considered substantive (and thus not deletable):

1. Any material cited to a source, no matter how credible;
2. Conclusions, interpretations, and analysis;
3. Information considered common knowledge in a particular field or by a particular subgroup.

• However, the present NPOV policy is not sophisticated enough yet to sufficiently deal with matters of form. Although it is often impossible to distinguish between substance and form, I think it's safe to say that the NPOV policy has trouble resolving issues we as Westerners traditionally consider to be matters of form. For example, the following issues are not very well dealt-with under the present NPOV policy:

1. Priority of argument (which arguments should be placed first in the article);
2. Political correctness issues;
3. Words whose definition is considered to be "owned" by a particular subgroup (e.g., Christian, science, cult, marriage, etc.);
4. The spawning of sub-articles devoted to particular points of view, and whether they should be merged with their parent articles;
5. Situations where one side insists that an aspect of an argument is substantive and cannot be put in different words without incorrectly representing the point of view, but where the other side finds that form heavy-handed, offensive, or unpalatable.

Wikipedia contributions

General interests

I have been a Wikipedian since November 6, 2003. In the past, the majority of my interest has been in creating and editing articles on Religion (especially Mormonism); however, I am hoping to get more involved in some other areas that interest me, such as Critical theory, Government, Science, and Law.

Articles in which I have the most significant investment or present interest

Adam-God theory—Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—Blood atonement—Book of Abraham—Coase theorem—Council of Fifty—Deconstruction—Différance—Eliza Roxcy Snow—Endowment (Mormonism)—Family values—Godhead (Mormonism)—Heavenly Mother—History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—History of the Latter Day Saint movement—Indian Placement Program—Jacques Derrida—Journal of Discourses—Lectures on Faith—List of articles about Mormonism—Metanarrative—Mormonism—Mormonism and Christianity—Mormonism and Freemasonry—Oliver Cowdery—Patriarchal Priesthood—Postmodern music—Postmodern philosophy—Postmodernism—Prayer circle—Priesthood (Mormonism)—Relief Society—Second Anointing—Temple garment (Mormonism)—Temple (Mormonism)—Washing and anointing—Women and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism)—Word of Wisdom

A few of the more interesting or potentially interesting articles I created and wish to see improved by others

Aaron Eckhart—Anointed Quorum—Apostle (Mormonism)—Articles of the Church of Christ—Binary opposition—Book of Commandments—Bruce R. McConkie—Church of Christ (Mormonism)—Doctrine of equivalents—Dramatica—Earth Charter—Elijah Abel—Elizabeth Ann Whitney—Emma Hale Smith—Fluid mechanics—Forbidden fruit—Fugacity—Hyrum Smith—Latter Day Saint movement—Mormonism and Judaism—National Reconnaissance Office—Neil LaBute—Patriarchal blessing—Priesthood—Priesthood Correlation Program—Primary Association—Relief Society—Revelation of Arès—Sacrament (Mormonism)—School of the Prophets—Sealing (Mormonism)—Seer stone—Separation process—Sons Aumen Israel

My images

Image:Joseph Smith, Jr. (1843 photograph).jpg—Image:Nauvoo, Illinois daguerreotype (1846).jpg—Image:Logo of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1995).gif—Image:Logo of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (pre-1995).png—Image:Lorenzo Snow photograph (BYU).jpg—Image:Long John Wentworth picture.jpg—Image:Eliza Roxcy Snow photograph.bmp—Image:Gordon B. Hinckley on Larry King Live (1998).jpg

Educational background

• B.S., Brigham Young University, Chemical Engineering
• J.D., The George Washington University Law School

Career path

Presently, I am an intellectual property lawyer at a large law firm. Previously, I have been a chemical engineer. For two years, I was also a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In addition, I am working on a novel in my spare time.

Personal life

I am married, with two daughters. I am a loyal fifth-generation Mormon, raised in rural Utah.

Disclosure of political views

Mormonism and the Democratic party

I am both a Mormon and a member of the Democratic Party. Contrary to popular belief, the term "Mormon Democrat" is not an oxymoron. Though I respect my overwhelmingly-Republican friends and family, I find much in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and LDS history to support the Democratic ideals of tolerance, Constitutional civil rights guarantees, war as a last resort, economic justice, environmental stewardship, and civil libertarianism (including a government-interference-free zone concerning sexual relationships between consenting adults, which a couple of my polygamous ancestors would have greatly appreciated).

I have great respect for church leaders, and wish I could be like them. Though I don't necessarily agree with everything ever said by any general authority, I try to do what I'm commanded. When church leaders offer advice or scriptural exegesis, as opposed to commandment, I try to understand what they are saying, what moved them to say it, and how I can apply it to my life. But in the end, on matters of conscience, I recognize that I must follow the Holy Spirit. I don't believe that there is one right way to run the church: if God wanted to micromanage the church, he'd do it himself. So I believe that church leaders are allowed to make mistakes, and to have differences of opinion. The fact that they aren't perfect, or that there are often many acceptable answers to any given question, doesn't bother me. Thus, for example, I don't agree that the church was wise in supporting Prohibition or not allowing Blacks to hold the priesthood. But I respect the leaders who made that decision, and their right to make it. Church history is full of learning experiences.

Thoughts about the invasion of Iraq

• My greatest political concern right now is that by invading Iraq, which was externally-harmless at the time, and by bungling that invasion, George W. Bush has foreclosed the possibility that the U.S. can use any credible military threat against Iran and North Korea, who because of Bush's tunnel-vision now have nuclear weapons.
• After failing to find WMDs, Bush changed his rationale for the war by saying the Iraqis were "better off" without Saddam Hussein. But since when to Republicans invade a foreign country for purely humanitarian reasons? I don't see any Republicans clamoring to invade Sudan, and I remember what Republicans used to say about Somalia. Besides, is Bush saying that the ends justify the means? In other words, is the standard that we can invade any country for any reason, as long as the invasion results in an improvement to the invaded country?
• According to a recent scientific Lancet article, the U.S. invasion of Iraq has resulted in somewhere in the range of 100,000 to 200,000 more deaths than were occurring under Saddam Hussein. In addition, we all know from Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and various Bush administration and pentagon memos, that the U.S. military, like Saddam, is not above torturing prisoners. So which is better: a dictatorship that kills thousands and tortures hundreds, or a long-term military occupation government that kills hundreds of thousands and tortures tens?

Favorite anti-war quotes

• "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." --United Nations Convention Against Torture, Art. 2, section 2.
• "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn to live together in peace by killing each other's children." Former President James E. Carter, December 10, 2002, acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, Oslo, Norway.
• “Why of course the people don’t want war. ... That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” -- Hermann Goering (commander of the German Air Force and president of the Reichstag), at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals in 1946.

Separation between church and state

I believe that the U.S. Constitution includes a strict wall of separation between church and state. Thus, for example, I oppose efforts to erect monuments to the Ten Commandments or the Baby Jesus in public spaces, or to teach creationism in public schools. In this, I agree with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who are on record advocating a wall of "perfect separation" between church and state. The founding fathers, many of whom were deists, were highly suspicious of religious links to government of any kind.

Template:DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual