Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Golden Plates/Book of Mormon

Reviewing these sections, may I make a few comments?

Would it be worthwhile to include a quick mention of the Golden plates#Unsuccessful retrieval attempts? This could further illustrate how JSJr acknowledged his own 'treasure hunting' and considered it to have initially impeded him from receiving the plates (assuming the quotations used in that article are authoritative).

The brief mentions of the Urim and Thummim somewhat confusing. Wasn't the breastplate mentioned in the "Golden Plates" section, part of the urim and thummim, or attached to it? These seer stones are also considered by the Latter-day Saints to be bound into a set of spectacles. The article states that he put the seer stones in the bottom of his hat, but not all the sources cited agreed that they were 'in the bottom of his hat' (I wonder if the stones detached from the spectacles or something). I also wonder about the credibility of the quotes given, were they first-hand witnesses? Some obviously were. Despite the ambiguity of the historicity of the situation, I think these brief references to the Urim and Thummim could be expressed better.

And finally, have you seen how many of the citations are Bushman? Or how many times the article states: "According to Bushman..." No matter how great of a source Bushman may be, the article becomes Bushman's article if we are always citing him. This isn't an article on Bushman. I think some items could easily be re-referenced, without needing to change the text at all. For example: 'According to Richard Bushman, "From then on, Joseph's life revolved around the plates."' It seems obvious from the later-given fact that he "dictated most of the Book of Mormon to Cowdery between early April and late June" that he was absorbed in the plates. Whether Bushman was trying to indicate that this period of his life revolved around the plates, or if he was implying that the entire rest of his life had changed direction because of the plates, there are probably many other sources we could find that would say the same thing.

I haven't changed anything in the article yet but do invite others to act upon my suggestions as they see fit, according to consensus. Also note that the two articles I linked to in this comment seem to be somewhat one-sided supporting the general LDS view at the moment. --B F^izz _(e•t•c) 07:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bushman has been quoted because of his recent book, Rough Stone Rolling. It is a pretty dynamic piece of history, but feel free to bring in other reliable references. The edits you see are a reflection of the editors and their knowledge of the subject. There is always room for improvement.

The topic of the Urim and Thummim and the seer stones (or the whole conversation about the translation of the Book of Mormon in general) is not well understood by people at large and more importantly because there is so little information available. There is conflicting pieces of recorded history and the article currently reflects history as not seen by the Latter Day Saint movement, but rather from the perspective of critics. LDS rely on the term Urim and Thummim rather than seer stones as the process through which the interpretation was completed. However, you will find conflicting testimony that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim, seer stone, and nothing but direct revelation toward the end of the process. Joseph gave very little information about how the translation was done except to say through the Urim and Thummim and the power of God. The stove pipe hat is a favorite story of anti-Mormons and they much prefer to focus on that rendition of history because it sounds so silly and best frames their perspective that Smith was a con artist from the start.

It is best to be bold and when you see where you can improve the article, do it. You will find that if your edits are less than acceptable someone will revert it quickly and you can then begin to discuss it on this page. As you review the archive section you will see that there has been no shortage of discussion in the past and I don't see that changing. Just enjoy the discussion and be prepared to defend your edits. Cheers. --^StormRider 08:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The article as it stands is a fine example of both NPOV and literary style. For that reason the article has been basically stable for some months now. Although the article might be improved by some stylistic pruning, any changes that make it longer are prima facie suspicious. As for Bushman, he is cited repeatedly because he is both a recognized scholar and Mormon patriarch, in other words about the most neutral source one is likely to bring into evidence.--John Foxe (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

John, I don't disagree with you about Bushman being an excellent reference, but your reasoning is a little off. The office of patriarch is not the equivalent of the office of Patriarch in the Eastern Orthodox Church or other churches that use the term. A Patriarch is in individual that is called to provide patriarchal blessings to individuals. He has no ecclesiastical authority except to provide those blessings for the membership within the stake in which he was called. It is not a leadership position of any kind. LDS would think of a patriarch as a spiritual person. However, it does not make his book more respected. His book is respected because he is an academic scholar in history. Does that make sense?

As far as being stable, never interpret silence as acceptance. The two do not equate and never have. This is an prima facie example of why B Fizz made this statement. --^StormRider 18:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand the nature of the LDS patriarch. I could have explained that Bushman was a former bishop or that he is an older fellow who's paid his dues as a Mormon throughout his academic career, but saying "patriarch" was easier. Also, using a believer's account throughout the article helps blunt the charge that it's anti-Mormon.

As for the stability of the article: about a year ago, I looked in on it and said, "No way I am going to be a part of that zoo." But during the past few months, most of what I've done here has been reverting vandalism. Its says something for the quality of the article as it stands when partisans on either side fail to come up with substantive changes that stick.--John Foxe (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

More sources are generally better than fewer, so I think we should leave Bushman and add other refs. On stability ... Though we are all grateful for the removal of vandalism, how are changes supposed to stick if we undo everything that isn't written by ourselves!? As a newcomer, I worry 'stability' might just be a euphemism for 'protracted edit war.' However, because there is basically a good narrative flow to the article, we should generally have more discussion than less to prevent mangling the good parts.--Adlib24 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The way things stick is through consensus. And there hasn't been any consensus for change because almost every sentence of the article has been beaten to death in the past and the quality of the prose is so high in the present. When the biggest month-to-month changes in an article are made by vandals and bots, you've got something going.--John Foxe (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the "Book of Mormon" section, please be so kind as to review the changes. There remain, if I counted correctly, 8 direct quotations from Bushman in the text of the article, which, in my opinion, is too much. Several of the quotations are prosy and don't really communicate anything about JSJr, but rather Bushman's opinion or impression of him. I figured before removing the following two quotations I should check for consensus:

• "Smith had a green thumb for growing ideas" - If it had been said by someone of his time it might be more worthwhile to keep it. The quotation concerning Masonic rites which follows could be paraphrased or reworded, rather than directly quoting Bushman. Returning to the "green thumb" thing...such a statement could be made without even citing anyone, if the rest of the article illustrates the fact so completely that anyone would agree with the statement.
• "Bushman has called his practice of plural marriage 'the most disturbing.'" And...so? It disturbs Bushman. Perhaps it would be more relevant to state if it disturbed people around Joseph during his time? Can you even find the word "disturbing" in any biography with "featured" status? It's a little POVish.

My point is that Bushman is one person, and perhaps when the article is using "according to Bushman" it should really refer to a relevent group affected by Smith. Bushman in and of himself cannot represent such groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B Fizz (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bushman has written the most thorough, scholarly biography of Joseph Smith to date. And he's a Mormon believer. You don't state on what grounds eight quotations from his 700-page work would be inappropriate. As for whether plural marriage disturbed Joseph's contemporaries: yes, they killed him. Nevertheless, in the interest of consensus, I've eliminated two Bushman quotations myself--John Foxe (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Shorten Succession

Since the section doesn't deal directly with Smith, I propose that we reduce the "succession" material significantly. Minimal information about Strang, Joseph III, Young, and perhaps Rigdon should suffice. Do the rest of you agree, or do you think more information would be necessary? --B F^izz _(e•t•c) 23:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The devil's in the details of making the cuts. Although if I were beginning to write this article fresh, I wouldn't have produced such a long paragraph, the section was considerably longer when I got here. At this point it's probably best just to leave well enough alone. The information is useful. Besides, the section as it stands now is a more easily understandable and literate guide than the much longer article on the Succession crisis.--John Foxe (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As I looked it over, I had a hard time finding what I would take out as well. Despite the fact that it doesn't deal directly with Joseph Smith, it does deal with his legacy. Reducing the section any more seems like it would take away from the flow of the prose and make it a choppy presentation of factoids. Just peachy...the article needs to be shortened...but where to take from? --B F^izz _(e•t•c) 18:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How an article holds together and its literary quality are in my view more important than length per se. Critics of Wikipedia all seem to have favorite examples of disproportional sets of articles. If you disregard the footnotes, "Succession crisis" itself is as long as this one. So is the biography of Frank Sandford, an obscure cult leader at the turn of the twentieth century. Patti Smith, the contemporary punk poet, has a biography just a bit shorter. What this article has going for it is its internal consistency and stylish (for an encyclopedia) writing throughout. In my opinion, it's at least as good as the Joseph Smith piece in American National Biography. If you'd like to practice your editing skill, B, I'd suggest trying to hack your way through the jungle of disjointed organization and pedestrian writing at Succession crisis.--John Foxe (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

First Vision edit

Just to explain a little my edit on the First Vision section: The theophany article states that it is an appearance of diety to man. A recent edit changed the word "God" to "an angel," but not all angels are considered diety so I changed it back to "God" since that is the meaning of the word theophany, applied to this context. I also modified the comment made about the various accounts of the first vision, merging it with the nearby Bushman citation and changing the wording to be a little more apologetic. --B F^izz _(e•t•c) 04:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Angels in America

I noticed this diff on my watchlist, a reversion by User:John Foxe of an anonymous editor's removal of the item about the play Angels in America. I'm not comfortable with the material that was restored, for three reasons:

• It is uncited. This is not necessarily a big deal; if those who are familiar with the work would unanimously agree on the description given, there's no controversy that would require a citation. (Example: the first item of "In modern media" mentions several films, and seems fine without citation because its statements regarding the films are all uncontroversial and readily verifiable.)
• It's unclear how significant the mention of (and allusion to) Joseph Smith is in the overall context of the play. Basically, is it a central facet, or a tangential mention? Either way the play could be cited (at least, if the mention in "Super Best Friends" episode of South Park merits a note), but it would be good to let the reader know how strong the link is between this bio of Smith and the play.
• "The angel...is described as the one Smith mistakenly believed to be Moroni." Whose POV is that "Smith mistakenly believed"? Is it part of the play's description of the angel and Smith's beliefs about it, or is it editorializing by whoever contributed this item?

I'm completely unfamiliar with the play myself, so if anyone watching this page has direct knowledge of it, can you help clear up these concerns? I'd tag it with something but I'm not sure if "citation needed" is the right fit for what I'm seeking. alanyst ^/talk/ 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is one of those stupid things that enter Wikipedia articles all the time. I feel the same way about mentioning everything in a South Park episode; its as if the trivial has somehow become the scholarly in this day and age. I suspect that this appeals to critics of JS because it mentions stones and Moroni. What value it has to the article is virtually nil. It does nothing to add to history. However, it does provide interest to those people who think "People", "National Enquirer" and the like to be must reads today. It nauseates me to think this passes for education and encyclopedic material. --^StormRider 00:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to find myself in agreement with you both. Of course, I think noting a film produced by the LDS Church is in the same ballpark. What would you say to eliminating all but the first item, mention of actors who've played JS in Hollywood films?--John Foxe (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I am game for deleting the entire section; there is nothing redeeming about current media in the role of historic figures. I know that this puts me at odds with those editors that so busily add this effluent, but it is one of my pet peeves on Wikipedia. Would that all similar sections in every article be could deleted. It is not history, it is not important, and it is without merit. Who takes the first swipe? --^StormRider 12:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You've got my support.--John Foxe (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Golden plates section refs (5-9) need improving

This section seems to be one that is constantly involved in edit wars. For some time, I have tried to think of what is the best way to approach it, and I have not decided whether the content even needs changing, but after taking a second look, I think the refs need some improvement. One major problem is that most of the cited references are not linked to entries in the reference section. Specifically, unlinked are in 6) Smith1838b, 7) Harris 1833, Hale 1834, Clark 1842, Turner 1851, Mather 1880, 8) Roberts 1830, 9) Bennet 1893 and Chase 1833. Another problem is that the citations are in part misleading, because the discussion in the footnotes does not link the citation to the main text. Specific problems:

Main text: Meanwhile Smith participated in a "craze for treasure hunting."

Footnote 5: The treasure-seeking culture in early 19th century New England is described in Quinn (1998, pp. 25–26).

The footnote suggests that Quinn's claim seems to be that Smith participated in a widespread phenomena of treasure hunting. The inference from the main text seems to be that Smith himself was readily caught up in the craze. Does Quinn claim that Joseph Smith was a "crazed" treasure seeker? Joseph Smith History(JSH) 1:56 seems to suggest otherwise, as Smith persuaded Stoal to stop looking. So, nevermind the controversy around Quinn, but if someone has Quinn, let's just make sure Quinn really believes Smith was a gung-ho treasure hunter, and not merely the more minor participant that Smith himself suggests.

Main text: Beginning as a youth in the early 1820s, Smith was paid to act as a "seer", using seer stones in mostly unsuccessful attempts to locate lost items and buried treasure.

Footnote 6: Smith (1838b, pp. 42–43) (stating that he was what he called a "money digger", but saying that it "was never a very profitable job to him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it"

I think the reference got mangled, it is clear from JSH 1:56 that the attempts were "mostly unsuccessful," but not at all clear that Smith claims to have acted as a seer for pay. ( I don't doubt this, I just want to make sure the ref is clear: being paid to be a moneydigger is not the same thing as being paid to be a seer).

Main text: Smith's contemporaries describe his process for finding treasure as placing the stone in a white stovepipe hat, putting his face over the hat to block the light, and then "seeing" the information in the reflections of the stone.

Footnote 7: Assorted refs.

This is rather a critical issue, because the descriptions of how Smith used seer stones, which I agree with, I have usually heard in the context of translating the Book of Mormon, not in the context of treasure seeking. Do every single one of these sources ascribe Joseph Smith as using seer stones to find treasures? If not there has been a conflation of how Smith used stones, with the more fringe claim that Smith readily used them to find treasure. Main text should probably be rewritten "process for using seer stones as"to bring it more inline with refs.

Main text: His preferred stone, which some said he also used later to translate the golden plates, was chocolate-colored and about the size of an egg.

Footnote 8: Broken Roberts link.

I think this is fine, but we could probably find other refs besides just Roberts that make this claim. Isn't it true that he did not exclusively use the chocolate seer-stone to translate? I might add 'in part' or 'among other means' to the main text for the sake of accuracy.

Last sentence is fine.

Well there you go...sound off mighty editors! --Adlib24 (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying and adding more information to footnotes is certainly a worthy goal, and I've done it to footnotes 5 and 6 as examples. But I don't think the accuracy of the information in that paragraph can be challenged by anyone knowledgeable about the subject.--John Foxe (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It would help if the references could at least be checked; when you click on them currently they go nowhere. Further, are the references repeating themselves? Harris is mentioned more than once; are the others first hand or are they hearsay? In addtion, the section completely ignores Joseph Smith's own words about the translation process. Not one of the witnesses quoted was there from beginning to end and none can say with any degree of validity what all of the processes used were. What is fact is that there were several processes and this just focuses on the most beloved method quoted by anti-Mormons. It is wonderfully sensational and can so easily be spun to sound like a joke. --^StormRider 21:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the Harvard citations, which sound like a good idea to those who advocate them but which are easily separated from the books to which they refer. Like you, I prefer citations that are obvious on their face. As for the process of translation, Emma Hale Smith, Isaac Hale, Michael Morse, Martin Harris, and Joseph Knight Sr. all said that Joseph looked at a stone in his hat. That's a pretty good cross-section of testimony.--John Foxe (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the refs, Foxe. FYI, Storm, even this [1] FARMS article by editor Daniel Peterson, mentions the quotes on looking in a hat. However, these quotes don't say anything about treasure seeking, and overwhelmingly refer to translation, so I am changing the main body text to read: "Smith's contemporaries describe his process for using seer stones as placing the stone in a white stovepipe hat, putting his face over the hat to block the light, and then "seeing" the information in the reflections of the stone." And adding the Peterson reference to 7 --Adlib24 (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your interest in connecting Smith's treasure hunting with his use of seer stones in a hat. I've now added those references.--John Foxe (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't make a big deal out of this, because I think you have you have humored me quite well, but if those are your refs, Foxe, then I think you are over-selling Smith as a treasure hunter. The Harris quote shows how Smith used the stone to find something (not treasure), and the other quote is more sarcastic, sensational quip, than eye-witness account. I guess part of my problem is I don't understand why you are so committed to selling Smith as a treasure hunter, so Smith was paid to dig for a mine by Stoal...big deal. Sounds a lot less crazy than what a lot of Goldrush people did when the traveled cross country on the hope of finding gold. Why are a few of Smith's odd jobs such a major part of the narrative on the Golden Plates? In any case, though in my opinion based on the refs I have Smith was a minor not a major participant in treasure hunting, I hope the much improved refs tone down some of the vandalism, and teaches people a little more about Smith's use of seer stones. --Adlib24 (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that vandals here do much reading. Swinging from trees and eating bananas is a more likely pastime. But we can always hope I'm wrong and that education does indeed produce a more docile race of simians.--John Foxe (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Headline text

This page is more of an advertisement than an article. It is one sided and only tells of Smith's dealing within his church, and bares no mention of the negative aspects of his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtf612 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Adherents of Latter Day Saint movements would never consider this article an advertisement, and it is certainly not the side of the story that they would tell if given the chance. When I first read the article, I considered it overly negative (see posts above). I'm not sure my opinion has changed much, but after seeing some of the even crazier vandalism that has gone on, I am content that the article is approaching the point where those with a negative view of Smith will think the text is too kind, and those with a positive view of Smith think it is too harsh. Maybe that's about right...Maybe - Adlib24 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Mtf612 was referring specifically to the leading summary paragraphs, not to the article in its entirety. A few new edits have apparently been addressing this, but still need some work because right now it doesn't flow very well. --...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 08:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

With all respect, B, I don't like to see biographical articles where the lede becomes a football. The article is about Joseph Smith, not believers, not "critics." Besides, it's simplistic and crass to say that non-believers argue Smith's interest in starting a new religion was for "money, women, and power." How about mental instability or demon possession or a joke that took on a life of its own? --John Foxe (talk · contribs)

I appreciate the respect, and also appreciate that you removed that line; it was bothering me but I didn't want to remove it since it stated a valid fact relevant to Joseph Smith. You were right in correcting it and the leading paragraphs have once again made a small improvement. Thanks. --...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 03:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wordle of article

For your amusement, and perhaps as a relevant general observation of the article: a word cloud from the JSJr article's text: Wordle: Wikipedia: Joseph Smith

I was going to post the actual picture...but didn't want to go through the trouble of uploading and everyting =P

--...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 02:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Point of View

As a Mormon, I find this page very biased and argumentative in tone. I am just fine including factual parts of Joseph Smith's life that are controversial or negative, but the tone of this article is judgemental and biased. For example, look at the difference between this page and the article on Muhammad Muhammad. It is strikingly different in tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgardunia (talk • contribs) 15:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As a non-Mormon, I find this page extremely biased and adulative in tone. My one efforts of including a few of the many prominent criticisms of this man was quickly eradicated, leaving the tone of this article judgemental and biased. Just because Muhammad's page is watched over by an equally zealous army of fans does not excuse the whitewashing of this article's subject. -- Marcika (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As a non-Mormon (in fact, a never-been-a-Mormon) and no fan of Joseph Smith, I was the one who "eradicated" your miscellaneous additions because the information in them is already covered in the article. The fact that Bgardunia believes the article too anti-Mormon and you believe the article too pro-Mormon means we're probably approaching NPOV here. But if you find the article biased, then please cite specific examples of that bias.--John Foxe (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me point out a difference between Joseph Smith and Muhammad: In the case of Muhammad (Jesus too), essentially all the source material that has survived about him is scriptural in nature and has passed through a period of oral history. Everything else has been destroyed, or was never recorded because the people were illiterate. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, lived in a world of much higher literacy where lots of people recorded things in their journals or have provided memoirs or letters in periodicals, journalists have been able to interview most of the main people involved other than Smith himself, and there are even pre-publication manuscripts of Smith's main works. So there is just a lot more breadth of material to work with, and his contemporaries had a lot of different opinions. Had Muhammad lived in the 1800s, I'm sure his article would look a lot different. COGDEN 01:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as POV goes, consider: I believe it to be universally accepted that people who knew Joseph Smith believed him to either be a fraud & scam artist of terrible infamy or a prophet of God. That's an extreme range. Few fell in the middle, and thus few historical accounts come across as objective. It is reasonable to conclude from this fact that whatever Smith did, and whoever he was, caused both reactions. Therefore, to properly and accurately portray Joseph Smith, an article must have enough and adequate examples of his actions and life so that a reader understands why both parties felt the way they did. If a person reads an article about Joseph Smith and does not understand both sides, then that article is deficient since it does not explain the reality of the universally accepted fact that Joseph Smith caused both reactions.

As I read this article, I can understand why people felt he was a charlatan, but I have a hard time understanding why people would think he was a prophet. So he lived in various places, was arrested, published a religious book, proclaimed new and different religious doctrines, founded a city, ran for president, was murdered, etc.--so what? Those things do not explain why anyone would think him to be a prophet. Therefore, something is lacking. A person's believe in Smith as a prophet is based more on his effects on them than dates and places. Many believed they witnessed him perform miracles, such as dozens of healings when the Mormons arrived in the area that would become Nauvoo. Similarly, those with him in Zion's Camp claimed he performed miracles then, regardless of the mission's ineffectiveness at achieving its initial aims. Regardless of whether such miracles happened (and it is not the place of an encyclopedia to demonstrate or claim whether miracles did or did not occur, since they--perhaps by their very nature--are notoriously difficult to prove), it is a fact that his followers believed they had happened, and that fact is worthy of mention since it has much to do with their belief and devotion, and thus an understanding of Joseph Smith. 66.249.100.228 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that assertion is demonstrated by the sources. There's no index entry in Bushman for "miracles," although there are two page references under Joseph Smith, Jr. for "healings by." One is the casting out of a demon from Newel Knight in 1830 (115), and the other is the healing of a woman's arm, noted by Ezra Booth, who then shortly after apostatized because he believed "Mormonism's signal weakness was Joseph Smith. He held too much power." (169) During the malaria epidemic in Nauvoo, Wilford Woodruff claimed Smith's blessings had produced successful healings; but the death toll continued to rise, and Smith himself lost a brother and a son.--John Foxe (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If memory serves, the malaria healings was an interesting situation. Joseph began to heal people, but then was constrained by the Spirit to stop, which obviously was a stressful event. It has been years since I read about that, but as I recall the book was called "More Precious Than Rubies". Healing is viewed as sacred and more often than not is seldom shared with others. Initially, Jesus would ask those healed to keep their silence about the healing. Attempting to draw conclusions by death tolls is viable effective historical review, but that seldom reveals an accurate spiritual history. Afterall, Jesus was almost entirely missed in ancient history and people continued to die during his period. Ezra Boothe provides an viewpoint where he acknowledges Smith's power as a healer, but still condemns him for have too much political power. The one view does not negate the other since both could very easily be correct.

I do think the Anon has a valid point in that the articles discusses little of the more positive sides of Smith. --^StormRider 12:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My point (which I unfortunately failed to clarify) was that while Smith was undoubtedly a charismatic figure, there is little evidence that "the belief and devotion" of his early followers arose from miracle working.--John Foxe (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think I would agree with that position. But in that context, I am not sure many people gain/retain followers. If Jesus is used as an example, it is an evil generation that seeks for a sign. I think LDS extrapolate that position to all seeking for a miraculous sign is not a path of righteous endeavor. Jesus did not gain his followers strictly by showing signs of miracles, etc. I don't recall every reading a text that alluded to the followers of Joseph Smith seeking after him because he performed "miracles". That being said, I separate the Book of Mormon and his translation of an ancient record stands apart from that statement (but we also cover it in the article); Smith's followers did believe in him because of what they believed about the Book of Mormon and they did view that as a miracle. --^StormRider 14:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that. The central reason why people followed Joseph Smith during the early Mormon era was the Book of Mormon and the story of the golden plates. That was miraculous in a sense, but then again, people in that era were used to hearing about miracles and visions. They saw miracles everwhere, and were a lot less jaded about claims of the supernatural than we modern readers are. The mere fact that miracles and visions were ascribed to Joseph Smith is not in itself enough to explain his following. It was the fact that there was a tangible book that people could read, and if they believed the book was genuine, then obviously, so was Smith. Still, there were many who believed the book was genuine, but eventually came to view him as a fallen prophet. That includes probably the majority of Smith's closest followers. COGDEN 01:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a very interesting discussion to sit back and read, and my hat is off to the observations. My own take is that the historical record suggests the B of M was the main point of inspiration and intrigue for those outside the HQ sphere, being facilitated by missionaries, but as soon as folks journeyed to the central gathering points, it was the personal charisma of JSJr. that held them in the fold. I would agree that the miracles issue is based on the retelling of the Palmyra story, and all the Restoration signified to the newly faithful, and not on followers seeking JSJr's hand in turning water into Welch's. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Miracles" is only an example of why someone might have believed Smith to be a prophet, or rather, be seen as evidence supporting the belief. (For those who believe the BoM account, it's publication would be considered a miracle.) The fundamental point is not miracles themselves, but does the article adequately capture what is was that caused people to believe Smith was a prophet and then supported them in that belief? Given the history of the Mormons, there clearly must have been reasons for such convictions, and given the numerous personal fallings-out with Smith, it seems his charisma is an insufficient explanation. My conclusion is that personal accounts, albeit they may be fantastical, are still an accurate reflection of the effect Smith had on people and thus give insight into who he must have been. It is generally not preferred to include such accounts because people's feelings cannot be supported with additional external references, and with Smith, all such personal accounts appear to be polarized for or against him, which would seem to diminish credibility. For these reasons it seems that such accounts are not included in this article. Generally, that would be a good move, but with situations like this one, it may not be the best decision. 66.249.100.228 (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at another, but very obscure, founder of a religion, Frank Sandford. There's a similar charisma, similar "fallings out." What's missing is a well-timed martyrdom. Mormonism was about to implode in 1844, and an Illinois mob saved it.--John Foxe (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

So we have: miracles, charisma, The Book of Mormon, and then martyrdom so far in this discussion. Martyrdom didn't cause people to follow Joseph Smith during his life, obviously, so that narrows it down to the first three. Of course, being a Mormon and a former missionary for the LDS church I can tell you from first hand experience that all these things pale in comparison to (when talking about reasons why people convert and why Joseph's story is significant to them) the converting power of the Spirit of God (The witness from the Holy Ghost) which was sent from God to witness unto all men the truth (dependant on their hearts being right enough before God). Yes, all truly converted Mormons know this but apparently have not mentioned it here yet. Ask any one of them. This is the real influence of Joseph Smith and the cause for his following. This should be included in the article along with a reference or quotation to a part of the Book of Mormon: MORONI 3:5-10 which is basically an invitation to find out by direct communication (prayer) with God whether the Book of Mormon is a true book of scripture. The same conversions happen now as they did back then.

Ok now after reading what I just wrote I have to say that this CAN *SOUND* like bigotry, but trust me it isn't. This is all relevant discussion that should be part of the article. A reader not knowing beforehand who Joseph Smith is would be lost without this important info.

By the way, please forgive the lack of writing skills including grammar and sentence structure. I'm doing my best here.

The original post to this discussion was "I find this page very biased and argumentative in tone" and I have to agree. There is no talk of 'Joseph Smith did more for the salvation of mankind than any man who ever walked the earth save Jesus Christ'. This tone is never touched upon in the article but the opposite tone does come through quite a bit: "...participated in a craze for treasure hunting" which biasly leads the reader to believe that Smith was a person caught up with some fascination of precious metals/treasure and thereby fabricated the concept of the Golden Plates. Indeed, the article takes the classic argumentitive approach that is taught in all college english persuasive writing courses: show a little bit (not all) of the opposition's perspective to gain more credulity and then smash it point by point with examples supporting your own point of view. This is routinely done in classes regardless of the truth of the position. So yes this article is highly biased towards the non-mormon/anti-mormon point of view.

To reiterate, the tone of this article currently goes as follows: 'Smith was a man who did this thing and that thing and thereby had a following of people. He was a man fascinated with treasure and thereby incorporated golden plates into his story to gain power. He was a domineering man who used his popular power to throw down his adversaries and submit them to his will and to gain his carnal desires.' So the tone currently goes: normal man, normal man, evil man. A true NPOV article would include the tone: great man and a true prophet of God. Zz55 (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Zz55

There's nothing POV about saying that in his youth Joseph Smith searched for buried treasure using seer stones. The evidence is cited in the article. On the other hand, declaring that anyone (whether Joseph Smith or Frank Sandford) was a "great man" and "a true prophet of God" simply because he had a popular following in his lifetime is a claim not susceptible to proof and therefore classic POV.--John Foxe (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Name Usage

There is a switch between using Smith and Joseph to refer to Joseph Smith, I assume. To someone like me, I am unable to tell if those are two seperate people, with no knowledge on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.231.149 (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Mormons customarily refer to Joseph Smith as "Joseph" or "The Prophet." Even Fawn Brodie, in the skeptical No Man Knows My History, often called Smith "Joseph."--John Foxe (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I make edits to these articles, I use Smith unless there is some reference to another Smith (such as his wife Emma) in the same context. I don't know if there is a guideline on that, but it seems less encyclopedic to me to use first names except to avoid confusion. For example, it would seem strange, in the Barack Obama article to refer to "Barack", or to refer to "Carl" in the Carl Sagan article.COGDEN 17:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you're right, COGDEN. I've changed "Joseph" to "Smith" except where the change would lead to confusion.--John Foxe (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not by any means an unbiased article

Just a random example: "Joseph Smith’s First Vision marked the beginning of the Restoration of Jesus Christ’s Church to the earth. In subsequent years, Christ restored His priesthood and reorganized His Church..."

There are those of us who don't think Christ did anything of the kind. HairyDan (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just temporary Mormon POV.--John Foxe (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, gee, thanks HairyDan. If you hadn't told me that, I would have never guessed that other people would dispute Joseph Smith restoring the church of Jesus Christ to the earth.

Second, does anyone know Wiki policy regarding wording a sentence as "Joseph Smith's First Vision marked . . . " and "Mormons believe that Joseph Smiths first vision . . ." I know that the second is more accurate as far as not introducing a POV goes, but isn't it somewhat cumbersome to be repeating this sentiment every seven words or so. Is it enough to just say something at the first of the article like "The reality of the First Vision, etc. are all Mormon beliefs and not everyone believes that they happened." Or, is it really necessary to cater to every donk thagets offfended because a writer chose to say "Joseph Smith . . ." and not "Mormons believe Joseph Smith . . ." Can anyone explain the Wikipedia policy to me? It is a legitimate question, even though I'm irritated by the comment from the last writer.

To give an example, I would not do that to the page on Mohammed -- changing every sentence containing "Mohammed did . . . such-and-such" to "Muslims believe Mohammed did . . . such-and-such". It should be obvious. Duh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.62.127.210 (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

POV line

Text in the 'Revealed to Smith' section describes Smiths dealings with the editor of the Whig paper 'The Warsaw Signal', Thomas C. Sharp using POV language - "arrogantly and unwisely offended".

Remove this? It could be replaced by the ref'ed quote so that the reader can make their own judgements. UnexpectedBanana (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added more substance to the citation for this statement. Whether coming from a Mormon or non-Mormon perspective, it would be hard to argue that in this case Smith did anything but make a serious mistake.--John Foxe (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Masonic signal of distress

Freemasonry Exposed, p. 76, Confessions of John D. Lee, reprint of 1880 ed., p. 153, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 618, Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 585, Mormonism and Masonry, by E. Cecil McGavin, page 17 and Life of Heber C. Kimball, p. 26. All these say the Smith gave the Masonic signal of distress, why is this not included in the acount of his death? (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.6.167 (talk)

Extermination Order

Could someone please explain how the Extermination Order has been completely excised from the article. It has become phrased in such milk toast terms as:

"an executive order for which there was no formal apology until 1976", and

"Latter Day Saint property was confiscated and the Saints driven from Missouri by the spring of 1839.[74]"

No mention of an extermination order, no explanation of the cruelty of such an order, the fact that at no other time in American history has anything similar been issued by government, or its impact on Joseph Smith and his role as prophet and leader of this religious group. We do have a statement that comes out of the blue, "Once the Latter Day Saints no longer posed a political threat, Missouri leaders realized that Mormon behavior could hardly be classified as treason whereas, as Fawn Brodie has written, the governor's "exterminating order stank to heaven."[80] How does this make sense? No one has explained the presence of an extermination order, that whole section has been white washed and treated as an "executive order" as in the President issued an executive order to pardon two turkeys on Thanksgiving.

Now, when I find this significant event being repeatedly expunged from the introduction, I begin to question if the objective is NPOV, or something which is the exact opposite. Please explain, John, because this looks like it "stinks to heaven". You said you rewrote the body, I assume that this is your work, but I have not verified it. I hope that it is not. Regardless, this event was significant in the life of Joseph Smith and his followers. I wonder if we should refer to the Jewish Holocaust as the result of Hitler's executive order and minor misunderstanding of the German government? --^StormRider 02:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

On another note, how does a mob's murder of an incarcerated group turn into an "assassination". That is so sterile as to be wholly lacking in any degree of description that reflects the event. JFK was assassinated. Robert Kennedy and MLK, Jr. were assassinated. Mobs attacking incarcerated black men in the southern jails is not assassination, but lynching and murder. Do you think there is a way we could actually describe the event? I am sure readers will not be overly influenced by sharing history with them. --^StormRider 02:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the Missouri extermination order should not be mentioned in the lede is that it has virtually no connection with Joseph Smith. At the time of the Mormon War, he was virtually invisible. Bushman says he "disappeared from view during the military action."(364) The extermination order would justly play a greater role in say, an article about the Mormon War or early Mormonism rather than in a biography of Joseph Smith. I'm convinced that Mormons were victims in Missouri; they just weren't innocent victims. An NPOV article need not, and should not, try to assess the mutual blame for what occurred in 1838. This is a biography about Joseph Smith, and at best, Smith delegated overmuch authority to his associates during this period.

As for assassination being the right word to apply to Smith's murder, the word "assassination" means to murder an important person. (We can charitably overlook the fact that neither MLK nor Robert Kennedy were blazing away at their attackers with firearms when they were killed.)--John Foxe (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see how a six shooter spells a veritable death knell to a mob of 200 men and exonerates their "forced" attack on Smith and all. Heck, if they had known the bloke was so fully armed they could of at least brought in another 2,000 men with cannon to ensure the safe "taking of life" or maybe "the removal of breath for an extended period" of the small group of men armed with a six shooter. It takes a very, very one-sided POV to turn an instance of trapped men in a second floor room being attacked by 200 men, guns blazing, shooting at everyone in the room, killing two of them and then say, Joseph was assassinated. We could say, Smith lost his life on June 27, 1844. That would demonstrate absolutely no responsibility on those innocent, God-fearing men that were forced to attack well-armed man (he had six balls in the gun). This is spinning at its worst! What makes it so difficult is that you actually write this stuff with a straight face and then defend it as starightforward history.

So what you are saying is that Joseph Smith played no role, was absent, during the Extermination Order when his people were forced to abandon their homes and leave the State during the winter of 1838. Further, that Smith being "virtually invisible" during this time is not worth mentioning. As the leader of this movement, it seems like it is of utmost importance to the history to mention why he was absent and what he did while being invisible. Also, the Mormon War is not the Extermination Order. I understand why you have expunged the term from the article, it is so difficult to downplay a state government issuing an E-X-T-E-R-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N Order against an entire group of people. How many times has that happened in the United States? What other people suffered such a similar order in world history? If it is important in their history, might it be at least worth a mention in this article? Geez, if we mention it in the article we would be forcing poor readers to think of Smith and his people of victims. Of course, they couldn't be victims because they, in your opinion, "they just weren't innocent victims." Joseph Smith and his people, by their very existence, asked to be exterminated by the righteous, God-fearing ministers and good Christian people who complied with the request! This is just too rich.

I suggest the following:

1. The fact that the extermination order not be hidden in the article body as it is now. That it actually be dicussed in forthright terms, historically accurate terms and then linked to the article for a full explnaation.
2. The introduction actually comply with WP:LEAD.
3. The article be reviewed, edited for conciseness and a neutral view point.

John, you might want to step back just a little. If you can't see how strong your POV is that you expunge something so terrible as an extermination order from the history of Joseph Smith and his followers; not from the introduction, but from the entire article. When you do these types of things you lose all credibility.

In my previous edits and in this edit I have been sarcastic and, to some degree, exaggerated the issues to demonstrate the silliness of your position. I should not be so sarcastic, but this degree of POV is really not acceptable for article. I honestly think that it is "spinning" at its very worst. I suspect that what makes it so distasteful, is that I think, John, that you know it is and still defend it. --^StormRider 18:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the paragraph says:

Thereafter "the Saints were bullied and threatened," and they responded in kind. Latter Day Saint families were driven from their farms, and Saints burned buildings belonging to the Missourians. In October 1838 a Mormon contingent skirmished with the Richmond County militia at the Battle of Crooked River. Three Mormons and a Missourian were killed. Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs declared that the Mormons be "exterminated or driven from the state", an executive order for which there was no formal apology until 1976. A few days later a small party of Missourians surprised and massacred a Latter Day Saint settlement at Haun's Mill.

Where's the POV?--John Foxe (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you see any problems with it? --^StormRider 19:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My preference would be to eliminate the apology date and note that the Missourians who committed the massacre at Haun's Mill did not know about the extermination order. Otherwise, I think it's good NPOV description.--John Foxe (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The small bit about 1976 was agreed via consensus, after discussion back & forth and a trimming... Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Smith wasn't "blazing away with a six-gun"; thus inciting others defend themselves. He was given a pepperbox (5 or 6 shots) by the sheriff--whether it was for Smith's or to makre it look "justified", I don't know. He didn't shoot until his brother Hyrium was shot--so much for the mob "defending itself". He then fired three shots at the mob, hitting no one, before dropping it and running for the window, where he was shot in the back.68.231.189.108 (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Assasination?

You also need add that the pepperbox Joseph Smith had at the time he was shot was given to him by the Sheriff. He kept it in his pocket, did not draw it UNTIL Hyrum was shot, and only discharged about half of it into the mob (2-3 shots, depending on gun); hitting no one. No one Else was armed inside the cell. See BYU.org/Archives, History of the Church and lds.org/Ensign/June. I Demand you change this to the truth, instead of the fabrication you post; making the article even more biased against Smith.70.171.235.197 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 1994 "Martryrdom at Carthage".68.231.189.108 (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The LDS source you've cited for this information is unreliable and incorrect on every count.--John Foxe (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, John Foxe, it is Very accurate and reliable.I see you haven't looked it up. Besides, the only other references are from the people of Carthage, IL---can we trust what they wrote after lynching and murdering? And, not going after the murderers until an accusation was made? It is obvious everyone Knew who did it, as their faces were obscured. They even later shamelessly declared they had the murderers in their midst after the "trial" concluded on the lack of the accusers showing. So, If they were capable or murder; etc; any reference by them may be purged or fudged to make them look "justified". Besides, were You there?03:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)03:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.189.108 (talk) 68.231.189.108 (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Joseph's use of "seer stones" for treasure hunting.

I've updated the article to include a sentence that reflects the fact that most Mormon apologists dispute the historical accuracy of Joseph Smith using "seer stones" to search for buried treasure -- a point given an enormous level of importance in the original article, even though it should probably be a minor point warranting, at most, a couple of sentences. The link provided in the page explains in depth the problems that most Mormon scholars would have with these historical accounts -- lack of internal consistency and the fact that they were made by third parties about what someone supposedly told them about Smith and his use of seer stones. So, for balance, I've included a new sentence reflecting scholar skepticism.

On a deeper note, I'm not sure why the use or non-use of seer stones is given so much space (six sentences, by my count) when it really is a minor point to the overall article. I'm sure that a sentence going something like, "Smith was also reported to have extensively used seer stones for treasure hunting --references--, although the accuracy of these reports is disputed by Mormon scholars" --references-- would convey the idea quite nicely. Do we really need six sentences to get this idea across, including an in depth description of the alleged stone as being chocolate colored? If not, I propose to move this information to a footnote or something. It doesn't seem like it's adding that much to the article to me -- too much information for an encyclopedia article.

Any other thoughts on this idea? If needed, perhaps we can put it to a vote. Jjc16 (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentences about Smith's use of seer stones are largely based on Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling, and Bushman is a Mormon in good standing. Not all the evidence is hearsay. Not a single non-Mormon scholar disputes it. Most Mormon scholars accept it as well. Only Mormon apologists try to explain it away.--John Foxe (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Jjc16, I don't think there really is any scholarly dispute (LDS or otherwise) that Joseph used seer stones. The dispute comes from what he used them for and when. There is significant discussion on the Urim and Thummim and the seer stones Joseph used and when. What makes the discussion difficult is as you say, most of the comments are third party because Joseph said very little about either. Regardless, Joseph used them early and later in his life.

What I do think is a valid point is balance in the article. I agree that we do not need to cover it so heavily, but this is where consensus comes to play and editors should work together to improve the article if this specific area needs improving at all. You started on a specific proposal above, can you provide an actual proposal for the paragraph/section to discuss here? ^StormRider

If a man says an angel appeared to him and provided golden plates which he translated while looking at a stone in a hat, then it would be dishonest not to mention (in detail) the fact that the same man had previously been paid to search for buried treasure while looking at a stone in a hat.

As for balance, I think the last time someone tried to make serious alterations to this section, it was an editor who wanted to add dollops of Persuitte, which one or the other of us headed off at the pass. In my opinion, we've got a good balance right now.--John Foxe (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought my edit made it clear that scholarship does not support the conclusion that Smith did not use seer stones. I really haven't looked at the article as a whole very closely in long time. To me context is everything and in the scheme of things the seer stones are not the major event of his life as a young man or as a leader of the LDS movement. The challenge that you allude to is covering all the bases without leaving the titillating stuff out (and I do think it should be there). It is always difficult to be concise and complete, but alas that is the challenge of writers. I don't think we are on different pages, but I am willing to discuss the concept with a new editor. Does this make sense? --^StormRider 02:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I always appreciate comments from knowledgeable people like yourself. For folks with ideological axes to grind—whether apologists or anti-Mormons—I recommend blogging.--John Foxe (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I find that I share that same piece of advice with people; however, I am not sure how many people are willing to take me up on the advice. Some can be pacified with change of tone and others it is show me the reference. Regardless of position that is one that will often be sufficient to silence the redundancy of the conversation.

Curious, I think you have read enough of Quinn. Have you read any of his views on homosexuality and the early years of the movement? I had a recent conversation with someone and I feel like Quinn is out there by his lonesome and thus should be considered fringe in that one area. Do you have any thougths? I think it complicates the conversation because we are put in the position of saying this is fringe, but this is not. Curious. --^StormRider 03:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

StormRider, I like the comment that you said about the seer stones being a minor point in the life of Joseph Smith. This was the first point that I was trying to make with my last talk page post. The second point that I was trying to make (sorry if it didn't come through) was that the use of seer stones by Joseph Smith for treasure hunting is disputed. I don't think anyone disputes the use of seer stones by him, Mormon or non-Mormon.

So, I think the revision of the article should take one of two courses. Either a) we break off the seer stone text into a separate section (if we think its important enough to keep in the larger scope of the article) or b) we reduce the information down to perhaps one or at most two sentences that convey the same information. Something similar to the following:

--> Move to another section? Meanwhile as a young boy Smith participated in a "craze for treasure hunting."[5] Beginning as a youth in the early 1820s, Smith was paid to act as a "seer," using seer stones in mostly unsuccessful attempts to locate lost items and buried treasure. [6] Smith's contemporaries describe Smith's procedure for using seer stones to hunt for treasure as placing the stone in a white stovepipe hat, putting his face over the hat to block the light, and then "seeing" the information in the reflections of the stone.[7] His preferred stone, which some said he also used later to translate the golden plates, was chocolate-colored and about the size of an egg, found in a deep well he helped dig for one of his neighbors.[8]

During this period Smith said he experienced a visitation from an angel named Moroni[9] who directed him to a long-buried book, inscribed on golden plates, which contained a record of God's dealings with ancient Israelite inhabitants of the Americas. This record, along with other artifacts (including a breastplate and "seer stones" that Smith referred to as the Urim and Thummim), was buried in a hill near his home. On September 22, 1827, Smith said that after four years of waiting and preparation, the angel allowed him to take possession of the plates and other artifacts. Almost immediately thereafter, Smith recounts that local people tried to discover where the plates were hidden.[10]

Smith claims to have translated these plates of Gold by means of the Urim and Thummim seer stones. Third party accounts also claim that Smith used other seer stones for other activities, including placing a chocolate colored stone in the bottom of a stovepipe hat to look for a silver mine (insert references). However, the historical accuracy of the third party claims is disputed by some scholars (insert my reference).

--> Move to another section? Smith left his family farm in October 1825 and was hired by Josiah Stowel, of nearby Chenango county, to search for a Spanish silver mine by gazing at his seer stone.[11] In March 1826, as a result of his using his seer stone to search for the silver mine, Smith was charged with being a "disorderly person and an impostor" by a court in nearby Bainbridge.[12]

--> Move to another section Smith also met Emma Hale during this period and married her on January 18, 1827. Emma eventually gave birth to seven children, three of whom died shortly after birth. The Smiths also adopted twins.[13] (See Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.)

As I explained earlier, if we want to put more stuff in about seer stones (arguably an interesting part of Smith's life) then we should make a separate section. The changes I've introduced are for a very condensed edit of the Golden Plates section, leaving out a lot of the seer stone information. If we still want to include it, move it to another section!

What does everyone else think? Jjc16 (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can really surgically separate out the part about seer stones in his early life. Seer stones were his job, his hobby, and later, part of his religion. If it weren't for the seer stones, he'd never have met his wife, he never would have found the plates, and he never would have made enemies in Palmyra. COGDEN 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "surgically separate out" the parts of Jospeh Smith's life that had to do with seer stones. My original contention was that I feel they are not that important to the overall story. So, either we a) reduce the comments on seer stones in the Golden Plates down to a more appropriate couple of sentences (including a statement about both the third party stories of Smith's use of seer stones for treasure hunting and the scholarly doubts about the authenticity of those claims) or b) we create a new section titled "Seer stones" (if the information that he had a "chocolate" colored seer stone and a "white" stovepipe hat really is so important that it just can't be left out of a general article).

I'm not trying to separate anything out with this, as you put it, but rather trying to clean up the article. If we want to go into great depths about every little aspect of Smith's life, fine, lets do that. We can put tons and tons more stuff in this article. However, if we want to just stick to the main points, lets reduce the seer stone section down to something like what I suggested. Jjc16 (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentences on Joseph Smith's use of seer stones are of major importance to the preservation of an NPOV article about him. As I said above, if a man says an angel appeared to him and provided golden plates which he translated while looking at a stone in a hat, then it's dishonest not to mention (in detail) the fact that the same man had previously been paid to search for buried treasure while looking at a stone in a hat. Yes, the seer stone business is discreditable both to the character of Joseph Smith and to the origins of the LDS Church, but there's no reason to downplay or sanitize it on that account.--John Foxe (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the sake of conversation, Joseph Smith never said he used the stones for translation; he only stated that he used the Urim and Thummim. Others said Joseph, at times, used the stone in the hat. The only problem for me is any language that leads readers to assume that it was the only method of translation. As COgden has made clear in the past, Smith is known to have used the Urim and Thummim, the seer stones, and nothing at all during the translation process. This should be what is highlighted and not the hat and stone trick. --^StormRider 19:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

All the following said they saw Smith translate using a stone in his hat: Emma Hale Smith, Isaac Hale, Michael Morse, Martin Harris, Joseph Knight, Sr., David Whitmer, Elizabeth Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery. Call it a "seer stone" or "Urim and Thummim" (the terms seem to have been used interchangeably), producing the Book of Mormon, at least, was a matter of translating via "the hat and stone trick."--John Foxe (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, did anyone actually READ the reference that I put in? As I said, it is a scholaraly reference disputing the accounts that Joseph Smith used seer stones for purposes other than translation of the plates. It chalks up most of the other accounts quite convincingly (at least to me) to hearsay and third party accounts. Second, if we want to mention that Smith used stones for treasure hunting (despite the evidence that many of these accounts aren't reliable), then fine. But, we should either a) condense the material down to something akin to what I originally wrote or b) separate it into its own section entitles "Use of Seer Stones" or something. And, if it gets its own section, we can go into great depth about how Smith used a chocolate (or raspberry or marmalade) colored stone in a hat for treasure hunting for X and Y. We can also put in statement about how these accounts (mostly third party) are disputed by the source I listed.

The only problem with the article as it stands now is that there is no balance suggesting that anyone disputes the use of stones by Smith for treasure hunting. As you said before, nobody, Mormon or not, disputes the use of stones by Smith in general. They only dispute WHAT he used them for. Jjc16 (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Bushman says: "For a time Joseph used a stone to help people find lost property and other hidden things, and his reputation reached Stowell. Later, after Joseph was arrested for his activities, Stowell testified in court that while still in Palmyra, the 'prisoner looked through the stone and described Josiah Stowell's house and out houses' correctly.'" (49)

Court records are not hearsay. Bushman is a believing Mormon. His biography is the most complete available. Your reference is not "scholarly" in any normal meaning of that term, that is, material appearing in a peer-reviewed professional journal. It's Mormon apologetics. To trump Bushman, you'll need scholarship.--John Foxe (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for pointing out what Bushman said, in case I'd missed the 50 or so other quotes by him on the page. I didn't think I was disputing that Bushman and others said that Smith used the stones for treasure hunting. And, I'm happy to hear that Bushman is an active Mormon -- not that I'm sure what that has to do with how good or bad his research is.

A word about peer review: Did Bushman compile his biography from a list of peer reviewed articles in a journal? If not, then there is a very good chance that his work is not peer reviewed. Even if it is peer reviewed, that does not exclude the inclusion of other, peer reviewed material that reaches a different viewpoint. I work as a researcher, and I see two peer reviewed articles all of the time that reach differing conclusions. When in doubt about which one is right, I include both of them in the papers that I write.

I also liked your comment about research presented on the BYU website being "Mormon apologetics" and not "peer reviewed". Sorry to be rude, but that is a really stupid comment on your part. I'm pretty sure that BYU as a University would not put something that a) they didn't look at (through some kind of peer review process) and b) put something up that they wouldn't back up 100% if challenged. BYU is a university -- owned by the Mormon church -- but a university nonetheless. I'm pretty sure that their research can be trusted -- even if it is "apologetics" as you call it. Just because something is defending a viewpoint doesn't mean that it's wrong or right. In one way or another, every document more advanced than the phone book presents some kind of world view. I think that something from this source deserves at least as much credit as something from Bushman. Further, I think it's offensive, unprofessional, and wrong for you to dismiss this research so lightly. Finally, unless I hear a consensus otherwise against it, I'm going to either a) insert the research or b) edit out the comments about treasure hunting as being unverifiable. If you want to start a revert war, then fine. This research deserves to be in the article.

Jjc16 (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Threatening edit wars and calling other people's comments "stupid" violate Wikipedia policies and are, at best, unlikely to win allies here.

BYU's website is an excellent source for determining LDS positions, but it's unsuitable as an NPOV source on which to base an encyclopedia article about Joseph Smith, the founder of Church. I'd have no problem with a footnote that began "The LDS church argues that...." and concludes with a citation to the BYU website. But Wikipedia articles themselves need to be based on peer-reviewed scholarship whenever possible. Fortunately, many articles and books from various perspectives have been written about Smith through the years. The books of Fawn Brodie and Richard Bushman, for instance, published by Alfred A. Knopf sixty years apart, were both critiqued by scholars before being published because the publisher had both a financial and intellectual investment in their success. Articles in journals such as the Journal of Mormon History, Dialogue, and Sunstone Magazine are also peer-reviewed by people from varied viewpoints before they appear in print. In the case of the BYU website, however, authors are expected to present the position of the LDS Church—which they should: the Church is paying their salaries. (Those who feel overly constrained by the hand of the Church go the way of D. Michael Quinn.)

I also edit articles about fundamentalist Christianity and am quite familiar with BJU Press, the press of Bob Jones University, the largest press in South Carolina. If the viewpoint of BYU is to be trusted simply because it's a university then why not that of BJU?--John Foxe (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read my last entry carefully, I said if YOU want to start an edit war over me putting in the citation (which I am going to do unless consensus opposes it), then you are welcome to. I haven't heard from anyone else besides you that I shouldn't, so I'm going to wait a few more days to see, and then I am going to reinsert it. As for calling your opinion stupid, I felt like I had to call a spade a spade there. Summarily dismissing an entire university full of talented researchers and intelligent people just because they are paid by the Mormon church is, quite frankly, stupid. I've personally known many of the professors at BYU (no I didn't go there) and can vouch for the academic integrity of all those that I've met and with whom I've done research. Further, I think that it's an offense to them and to all BYU professors to suggest otherwise.

I have no problem inserting citations from Bob Jones University, as long as their research is good. Unlike you, I really don't care who pays the bills. I've been to several conferences where the speaker's first Power Point slides was one revealing all of their conflicts of interest -- who was paying their bills. As long as those are known and out in the open, then their research can be judged on its own merits. Jjc16 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia article, the perspective is supposed to be WP:NPOV. We aren't at a conference where possible conflicts of interest can be revealed through PowerPoints. The reader can't tell who's paying the bills. Bob Jones III once called Mormonism a "cult." Who should decide whether his "research is good"? For whom do you do research?--John Foxe (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In regard to the impartiality of the BYU faculty, I recall Mark Twain's take on the testimony of the Eight Witnesses, "I couldn't feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified."Hi540 (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the theory that Smith didn't use Seer stones except to translate the Book of Mormon is a fringe theory. It is outside the mainstream of scholarship, rejected by most Mormon and non-Mormon scholars, and the normal FRINGE rules should apply. COGDEN 20:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Focusing on the article...the problem at this time is the article only mentions the Urim and Thummim in passing and does not allude to it being used during the translation process. In fact, it places the statement between two statements (going back in time for the second event) to discuss seer stones. The seems strange in that Smith only talked about the Urim and Thummim for translation of the Gold Plates. This topic can be better covered; it is not a balanced dicussion currently. --^StormRider 20:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As Quinn has written, "there was no reference to the Urim and Thummim in the headings of the Book of Commandments (1833) or in the headings of the only editions of the Doctrine and Covenants prepared during Smith's life." The substitution, says Quinn, is evidence that "by 1829 Joseph Smith used biblical terminology to mainstream an instrument and practice of folk magic."(175)--John Foxe (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

John--

And who are you (or I) to decide that this research ISN'T good? The proper thing to do is to put it into the article. If BJU had claimed that Mormonism is a cult AND produced actual research giving reasons why they were a cult and the research seemed credible, then why not? At the same time, I might throw in a few quotes disputing the legitimacy of their research, if such quotes exist. If the quotes don't exist, then no. But, in any case, as editors, it is not our job to decide which research is good and which isn't -- only to provide such research to the public. I don't think anyone here has an a priori reason why we should reject the research from BYU -- other than the rather specious reason that it was "paid for by the Mormon church". So what? Like I said, I've worked personally with several good professors who graduated from and did research at BYU. I think they, and all of the other professors I know at that university, would be offended by the challenge to their academic integrity that this line of thinking implies.

Furthermore, the professors at BYU can't find reasons to doubt the veracity of the statements about Smith's treasure hunting if none existed. If you read the article carefully, the BYU professors never "pull rank" and point to revelation or something silly like that. They systematically go through the different accounts that deal with this situation and, one by one, raise questions about the accounts that have been recorded. It's a valid critical approach to any historical topic, and it is one that deserves to be included in this article for balance. Jjc16 (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We're doing an encyclopedia article here not a historiographical piece filled with warring quotations. The question to be answered is whether the BYU article is the sort of peer-reviewed research that is acceptable to introduce here. The answer is no, except perhaps in a footnote to illustrate the current position of the Mormon church. As COGDEN has written, the thesis of the piece is "outside the mainstream of scholarship, rejected by most Mormon and non-Mormon scholars." If the same BYU professors had recently published the same article in a peer-reviewed journal, say the Journal of Mormon History, that would be a different story.--John Foxe (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Mormonism" (LDS) IS a cult. Look up the word "cult". Any organization with rituals--Methodist Church, Masons, Boy Scouts--are cults. This is not a bad connotation. Let's get past it.68.231.189.108 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

John, you and I both know that Quinn's are seldom mainstream and depending on the topic is considered fringe at best in some of his positions. My position is that we can improve on the section. It seems strange that the LDS Church's position would not be stated first, just as with all religious topics. I am not aware of any other religious topic where we start and end with the historical position. --^StormRider 16:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Quinn's views are sometimes over the top. But not here. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever used the term Urim and Thummim when he was translating the BoM. In my opinion, U&T is simply a euphemism that he thought sounded more biblical to those beyond his original circle who practiced folk magic. Of course, I won't say the latter in the article; and for your part, you shouldn't try to insert a term that's both problematic and anachronistic.--John Foxe (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

John, you haven't presented even one convincing argument to me as to why this quotation shouldn't be included. You said in your last post that the main thesis of the article was rejected by most scholars, Mormon and non-Mormon. Who are these scholars who reject the main thesis of this page? Do you have some quotations where a large group of scholars goes through this page and systematically refutes the arguments in it? Without something like that, step off with your "systematic rejection" statement about this article. Unless you can produce evidence, then I tend to believe that this main thesis of this article is rejected by YOU. One editor does not make a consensus.

Having said that, I want to hear what other editors have to say. I feel that I am getting too involved in the debate at the moment (mostly because of my irritation about the "reasons" John Foxe keeps giving me about why he doesn't want the quote included) so I would like some third party input. What do other editors/users think? Jjc16 (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason the BYU piece can not be used to support statements in this article (except in a footnote to indicate the current position of the LDS Church) is that it is Mormon apologetics published on behalf of the Church rather than in a peer-reviewed journal and presents a fringe view rejected by mainstream scholars both Mormon and non-Mormon. The burden of proof is on you to discover any scholar, published in a peer-reviewed journal, who argues that Joseph Smith did not use seer stones except to translate the Book of Mormon.--John Foxe (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right about peer review, Foxe, but I'm not convinced that Jjc16's thesis can be supported by the Anderson book review anyway. It wouldn't be the first time I've made a mistake here, but I'd like to see from which sentences in that review she derives the notion that Smith did not use seer stones.Hi540 (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we're talking about any official position of the LDS Church here. I'm not aware of any official position either that (1) Smith didn't use seer stones for treasure hunting, or (2) that Smith didn't use seer stones (other than the stone spectacles, which Smith said were seer stones too) for translating the Book of Mormon. The best-attested evidence, and the scholarly consensus, is that he primarily translated using a single seer stone in a hat. He might have used the stone spectacles for some limited part of the translation, but that is not historically well-attested, and is mainly a matter of faith. Whether mention of that item of faith belongs in this article is a matter of some flexibility, but if it appears, it should be less prominent than the historical consensus view, under WP:UNDUE. Moreover, the views that Smith did not use a seer stone in a hat to translate, or never used such a seer stone for treasure hunting, are WP:FRINGE views, and probably shouldn't appear in a summary section such as this article. At most, such information should appear only in a footnote. And remember, when we are discussing matters of history (as opposed to faith) we aren't talking about fringe theories as judged by the body of Mormon thought--we are talking about fringe theories as judge from within the body of academic thought as a whole. COGDEN 00:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

COgden, I think you may be reaching. I think the more scholarly position about the process of translation is that there is very little known. I would disagree that there is any scholarly consensus on how the tranlsation process took place, but rather there are very limited snipets of information about how the process took place and in those instances, if my memory serves, we have individual perspective regarding a single event of translation. None of those who made comments were in a position to provide blanket comments. Is this not accurate or am I overstating it? --^StormRider 01:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain about how many times Emma Hale Smith, Isaac Hale, Michael Morse, Martin Harris, Joseph Knight, Sr., David Whitmer, Elizabeth Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery saw Joseph Smith translate using a stone in a hat; but it was certainly on several different occasions because they were not simultaneous witnesses.--John Foxe (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Storm, what I'm saying is the historical consensus is that the primary, or at least the best attested, method of translating was using a single stone in a hat. That this is a consensus is verified by the Van Wagoner reference, page 53. I'm not saying that he didn't use other methods as well. Some of the statements do appear to be rather general statements involving a sustained period of time. For example, Emma Smith said that she sat as a scribe and wrote "day after day" while Smith used the single seer stone in the hat. Emma was not the scribe for the entire time, of course, but some of the other scribes agree in their description. David Whitmer described Smith's process of translating and did not limit it to any particular time, and it has indicia that Whitmer spoke to Smith about his process. Same with Martin Harris. in fact, Whitmer specifically stated that Smith did not use the Interpreters when translation occurred in his presence, only using the single chocolate colored stone. Cowdery refers to the "Urim and Thummim", but it is not clear that he is referring to the stone spectacles, or that the spectacles were his primary mode of translating.

Only accounts from the very early translation period (prior to the loss of the 116 pages) clearly involve the Interpreters. Thus, Smith himself and Martin Harris said he used the Interpreters in 1827 to translate some of the characters, but when Harris described the normal process Smith used when Harris acted as scribe, he said that Smith used a single stone. We know that in 1828, Smith said that the Interpreters were taken away. And though he said he got them back at the Autumnal equinox of 1828, there is no other specific record of them being used after that date that I can think of that makes it clear that what is being referenced is the "two stones set in silver bows" rather than a single stone. Moreover, nobody ever said they saw the two-stone spectacles other than Lucy Mack Smith (through a cloth). Like the plates, Smith said the angel commanded him not to show the spectacles to anybody. Thus, there is no reason to expect that anybody would be able to verify that Smith ever used the stone spectacles. I guess it's possible that on occasion Smith put the spectacles in the hat and used them instead of his stone, but there is no corroboration of that after 1828; whereas many people actually saw the chocolate colored stone. COGDEN 23:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) The problem is that none of this is mentioned in the article. Joseph is said to have identified the Urim and Thummim, but their use is not indicated. Worse, under the section entitled Golden Plates the readers see, treasure hunting, seer stone, stovepipe hat, preferred stone to translate. 2nd paragraph, visitation by Moroni in 1827, gold plates and purpose, breastplate, Urim and Thummim hidden in hill. 3rd paragraph, go back to 1825 for Spanish mine, 1826 for trial on using seer stones, 4 paragraph - marriage to Emma. All that under Golden Plates, but very little of it has anything to do with, but we get a huge dose of seer stones.

Proposal: I am not arguing against discussing seer stones, I am proposing that we don't cover the translation process well, Smith's own words are completely excluded from the article on this topic, and we don't really address the section topic of Golden Plates. We can do better, we can be more balanced, and we can include more information. Does this make sense? Just read the article, I know John would choke at this type of writing because it is so poor. Chronological events are confusing interspersed, main topic is ignored, and a plethora of secondary information takes center stage. Does this make sense? --^StormRider 00:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, Storm. I've now put the treasure hunting material before the First Vision. I realize one can argue that decision the other way, but it gave me the opportunity to correct a couple of stylistic infelicities in the process.--John Foxe (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree the material wasn't, and still isn't presented very well. I think there are too many headings. This is supposed to be a summary section, and it ought to be condensed into just one or two paragraphs. There is too much detail, and no sense of proportion. By far, the most significant historical event in his early life was finding the golden plates, which ought to take up most of the text. This event is why he is famous. The First Vision is very important theologically, but almost insignificant historically. It should get one sentence, like "Looking back to his early teens, Smith said he had a theophany." The part in the first section about his background is good, but the "treasure hunting" section is a bit too long (delete all but the first two sentences). It is sufficient to describe Smith's process of translating the Book of Mormon, and just mention that this was the same way he did treasure hunting. In a footnote, there can be something brief about the BofM Interpreters. I don't think his arrest and trial is significant, except maybe as a footnote. COGDEN 22:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I've revised the opening section with COGDEN's suggestions in mind. If I don't hear objections, I'll next take up the First Vision section. (Most of the earlier material is still there in footnotes.)--John Foxe (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've now reversed discussion of the golden plates and First Vision. Again, virtually everything that was in the older version still exists in either text or notes.--John Foxe (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating discussion - I'd never dare to try to improve the main page but if anyone is interested in light relief at this point, here's my take on Urim and Thummim: http://sexualfables.com/the-sorcerers-apprentice.php - Joseph Smith, Herman Melville anyone? When objectivity fails, try something else. Martin Blythe (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

John, I've read the changes to the article by you and Storm; and I agree that it is much better written now, so I'm going to let a lot of my initial criticism drop. I still think that your idea of research published on the BYU website not being academically reviewed before publication is very, very flawed -- but, whatever. I still think that the link to the website probably deserves to be included as a footnote, but I will leave the matter alone for the moment -- mostly because I am unsure how to add footnotes to Wikipedia. Jjc16 (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help with the footnote. Start me off here or write me an e-mail.--John Foxe (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Successor?

70.171.235.197 (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC) I ask you write Brigham Young as successor; footnote "disputed". You can dispute or contest anything, but the Majority of LDS went to Utah at his guidance.[Special:Contributions/70.171.235.197|70.171.235.197]] (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Suppose you were a member of the Community of Christ. Would you accept a statement that suggested that Brigham Young had the sole legitimate claim to succeed Joseph Smith? alanyst ^/talk/ 14:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying Who had "legitimate claim", I heard even one of Joseph Smith's wives claimed to be successor. It does not matter; Brigham Young Was, and Did become successor. This is Not an opinion; it is fact. He moved the church to Utah and establed it there--remember? The Community of Christ was not around until 1872 (try look); this was after Brigham Young's presidency, so it did not matter.70.171.235.197 (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your timeline is accurate, but the issue is/was the choice of Brigham Young accepted by all of the remaining church members and the answer is no. It took several years to choose a leader and during this time several people stated they were the chosen successor. The membership was torn and at first there was no clear prophet. The vast majority of the saints eventually chose to follow Brigham, but a sizable minority followed other individuals and some of those groups, however small, continue to this day. Does this make sense to you? --^StormRider 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

70.171.235.197 (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Maybe. Most US Presidential elections were disputed, for example:we certainly contested Schwarzenegger's "election" in CA (I don't know Anyone who got to vote on it). Even though "disputed", he Is Governator. I'm sorry you're in the C of C; I didn't meant to abrogate your right to an opinion. There is discrepancy and controversy in every faith.70.171.235.197 (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What Storm Rider is saying, who as an editor does not self-identify as CofC by the way, is that even if the LDS of today believe that Brigham Young was the legitimate successor to Joseph Smith, as en encyclopedia we must remain neutral and present all views. It is not clear-cut to historians who exactly was meant to succeed JSjr. The CofC (RLDS), for example, believe that Smith's son was eventually the legitimate successor and they self-identify as being organized in 1830 and reorganized in 1860 - 1872 is only significant due to adding the word Reorganized to their name. The point is that Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

70.171.235.197 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Neutral--Ha! What about the remarks about Smith marrying married women, promising 10 virgins for each convert? These are opinion. Also, the "majority of the minority". This doesn't pan out. 70.171.235.197 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations are given for Smith's marriages to already married women. The talk of ten virgins is indeed speculation, but the article makes it clear that the notion is that of the Nauvoo Expositor.--John Foxe (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2009

John Foxe: Smith never "married previously married women." This is again rumor; probaly by the 'Expositor'.68.231.189.108 (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(UTC) 70.171.235.197 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Look up your own article on "Fanny Alger"--it proves by DNA evidence Smith bore no children by anyone but Emma Smith. He constantly declared he had only one wife You contradict yourselves.70.171.235.197 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Marriage and having children by the marriage partner are two different matters. Although both Joseph and Emma did deny his plural marriages, there is no reason to believe either one of them given the plethora of additional evidence available.--John Foxe (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the LDS church acknowledges both

1. that there was a dispute over who was to succeed Joseph Smith
2. that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage

While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obviously believe that Brigham Young was the true successor, a significant minority (most notably, the Community of Christ) disputed and implicitly continues to dispute that. While I highly doubt that JsJr promised ten virgins to each convert, it is informative to know that during his lifetime some people believed that he said that. Here at Wikipedia we just report the facts, we don't interpret them. Just because we post criticism of a topic on Wikipedia doesn't mean that Wikipedia "supports" that criticism, nor does it mean that Wikipedia proclaims that the criticism is fact. Rather, we present the factual existance of the criticism.

On a separate topic, person-at-ip-address-70.171.235.197, I invite you to create a username and password. Comments and edits are generally viewed with more trust when they come from a user that is logged-in and willing to put a pseudo-name to his/her work. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 14:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The writer inferred he was C of C--this was a poor example, by the way, if he was so all-knowing. As we said it wasn't started until 1872, anybody could have looked that up, and it was almost after the controversy. So, a Few think Brigham Young wasn't the direct Successor? They are a very small minority--maybe 10%. So, maybe I get a log in, that makes me "righter"? Or "less right" if I don't? Did being President necessarily make George Bush "righter"? Of course not....Fact and the Truth stay the same. Are you Afraid of something?68.231.189.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

'Early Years' could be revised

Hey all.

Just a thought that roughly half of the "Early Years" section seems to focus on the "Craze" (contextual connotation likely meaning fad then, but could be associated with 'crazy' in current context)of treasure-hunting and looking-stones. I understand this being presented, but by its large focus it could mislead one into thinking that the majority of Joseph Smith's early years were spent on these endeavors.

No mention is given to painful leg surgeries which could have cost him the use of his leg. Or the nature of his farming duties. Or the different religious leanings he had during those years. Or his love for the game of stick-pulling. Or the religious divisions within his family. Or his relationship with his older brother Hyrum and his respect for his other siblings. Or the role his Father Joseph Smith Sr. played in Joseph's upbringing?

I am not concerned about the facts presented, just that the fixation on Joseph's apparent interest in treasure hunting leads this article to a pretty darkened and myopic outcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy (talk • contribs) 23:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree--it was easier to find gold than to dig ditches--many probably did it. The fact he was tried when he failed (Not convicted) is taken out of context to make Joseph Smith look like a con man, now trying to dupe people into a new faith---it is biased and presented untruely.68.231.189.108 (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you review the discussion history, you'll note how the balance of this article was worked out over time among editors of widely differing beliefs and that the article has now been stable for months (not counting regular vandalism, of course). Certainly aspects of Smith's life have not been covered in detail. But this article is only a survey. More detailed accounts can be found in the chronological divisions ("Early years," etc.) linked at the beginning of each section.--John Foxe (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi John,

I've spent many hours studying Joseph's life with an open mind and an interest in all facets of his life. I am not surprised to learn that the boy who refused alcohol during painful leg surgery grew to an adult who might drink socially. I do not refute the claims that a man who treated women and children with the greatest respect might have been married to more than one woman or to women much younger than him (I ascribe to a historical contextual approach when judging an individual and do not find this as disturbing as those of our day and age might based on modern norms and culture). So please understand my concern is not the documentation of the existence of practices or characteristics others will take issue with. My major concern is that the overall tone of this article seems to really miss the mark of Joseph's religious impact, the broad belief sytem he had, the characteristics that endeared him (and offended others) to his friends, his role within his own family, the timeline of the founding (restoration) of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS), his martyrdom and its influence on church members and opponents and many other profound accomplishments attributed to Joseph Smith in his brief life of 38 years.

I have gone back and read through the discussion history as you suggested and am still concerned at the balance of the article. From studying the discussion I understand that much of the issue has to do with the POV and natural bias of each contributer. The problem is that when you try to balance those who view Joseph as a heretic or cult leader with those who have reverence or a position of great respect for him, the entire article may be suspect. no offense to contributors here, but the reality is people are not likely drawn to study Joseph Smith unless they are a follower or a detractor. And a mere compromise will yield even less truth as everything of factual value that reveals positive or negative insight will be criticized. In the end you are left with nothing but the musical equivalent of 'Gospel Punk' or the culinary equivalent of 'Spinach Pudding.' Thus, despite many hours of dedicated effort and input, what remains is a confusing and narrow article about a man who some call wicked and others the greatest American of the 19th Century.

My two-bits is a new outline. This outline might include a brief history not just extracted from, but representative of his own journals, followed by common criticisms or divergent opinions. Finally a short outline on the influence and impact Joseph's life plays in forming common LDS belief and practice. You might be interested in the two newly available volumes titled The Joseph Smith Papers (available through josephsmithpapers.org) which contain exact replicas of Joseph's own journals, meeting minutes, and correspondences. These would help in the foundational preparation for an outline of his history in his own words.

While this might not satisfy Smith detractors, it would seem to show the same respect for the founding prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as is given on Wikipedia for most of the founders and leaders of other major religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.41.15 (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of David Herbert Donald's reference to E. Merton Coulter's The South During Reconstruction (1947) as "an impartial history from the Southern point of view."--John Foxe (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, John. I've followed your references but still do not see the point you are making here. Are you suggesting that using Joseph's own writings would be a biased and unreliable source? If so then we must throw out any auto-biographical writings. Juxtaposing your reference to the Southern States perspective(pre-civil war) with Joseph's writings seems unfair. It is clear through the common lens of history that the politic positions of the South were flawed. That does not seem to be the interpretation fair-minded historians have of Joseph Smith today. To the contrary, PBS' own documentary series was titled, "Joseph Smith: American Prophet." The LDS Church is widely respected for their small 'c' conservative practices and their respectful approach to the communities in which they reside. Their humanitarian work throughout the world, and their fundamental political neutrality are held in high regard by all who have taken the time to fairly research their actions as a Church. Do you personally hold Joseph Smith in no higher regard than the Slavery-tolerant South of the early to mid 1800s? Again, considering Joseph Smith remains a revered religious figure to millions worldwide, why is this article so negative in its tenor as compared to other religious figures (i.e. Mohammed, Pope John Paul)? I'm not looking for a glowing history, just a fair article sensitive in tone to those who still hold Joseph in high regard and to a man who backed his beliefs up with his own life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.159.196 (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Reconstruction occurred after the Civil War and Coulter wrote his book during the 1940s.

Although Joseph Smith—History is cited a number of times in this article, its foundation is the recent comprehensive biography of Smith by Richard Bushman, an LDS member as well as professor emeritus of history at Columbia University. It is a well-researched book and one that is comparatively impartial to all sides—not just to those who "hold Joseph in high regard."--John Foxe (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking at this whole NPOV thing and trying to put my finger on why this whole article still has such a negative point of view. I think I'm getting closer to it. First of all the "Mormon" side of the article is coming from Richard Bushman, a Mormon who is admittedly selected because of his fair-minded neutrality. That gives the article the illusion of fairness and neutrality. But then the "critical" elements are presented by the likes of John C. Bennett and Fawn Brodie, clearly unreliable researchers with strong biases which they bring to their writings. So in the math of it we have several selected neutral references combined with several negative references. That seems to me to add up to a heavy negative bias. Consider Wikipedia's own take on two of the sources for this article; Fawn Brodie: [Review on book on Thomas Jefferson] "Doesn't she [Brodie] know about making the theory fit the facts instead of trying to explain the facts to fit the theory? It's pretty fascinating, like working out a detective story, but she doesn't play fair." "Brodie became obsessed with the notion that Nixon had engaged in a homosexual relationship with his good friend Bebe Rebozo." "She [Brodie] even claimed that in dreams, she and Jefferson became "man and wife." Not surprisingly, Bernard Brodie is supposed to have muttered, "God, I'm glad that man is out of the house."

John C. Bennett While Bennett was mayor, he was caught in private sexual relations with women in the city. He told the women that the practice, which he termed "spiritual wifery," was sanctioned of God and Joseph Smith, and that Joseph Smith did the same. When discovered, he privately confessed his crimes, produced an affidavit that Joseph Smith had no part in his adultery and was disciplined accordingly. Although he vowed to change, he continued his scandalous behavior. When he was caught again, his indiscretions were publicly exposed and he was removed from his church positions, excommunicated from the church and stripped of public office. After Bennett left Nauvoo in May 1842, he claimed he had been the target of an attempted assassination by Nauvoo Danites, who were disguised in drag. He soon became a bitter antagonist of Joseph Smith and the Latter Day Saint church, reportedly even vowing to drink the blood of Joseph Smith, Jr. In 1842, he wrote a scathing exposé of Joseph Smith, entitled History of the Saints, accusing Smith and his church of crimes such as treason, conspiracy to commit murder, prostitution, and adultery.

So what is this article missing? The testimony of the living followers of the Church Joseph restored. You might start with this one, by Jeffrey Holland, LDS Apostle from the Church's General Conference this month;

"...Before closing the book [of Mormon], Hyrum turned down the corner of the page from which he had read, marking it as part of the everlasting testimony for which these two brothers were about to die. I hold in my hand that book, the very copy from which Hyrum read, the same corner of the page turned down, still visible. Later, when actually incarcerated in the jail, Joseph the Prophet turned to the guards who held him captive and bore a powerful testimony of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.8 Shortly thereafter pistol and ball would take the lives of these two testators. As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness. In this their greatest—and last—hour of need, I ask you: would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book (and by implication a church and a ministry) they had fictitiously created out of whole cloth? Never mind that their wives are about to be widows and their children fatherless. Never mind that their little band of followers will yet be “houseless, friendless and homeless” and that their children will leave footprints of blood across frozen rivers and an untamed prairie floor.9 Never mind that legions will die and other legions live declaring in the four quarters of this earth that they know the Book of Mormon and the Church which espouses it to be true. Disregard all of that, and tell me whether in this hour of death these two men would enter the presence of their Eternal Judge quoting from and finding solace in a book which, if not the very word of God, would brand them as imposters and charlatans until the end of time? They would not do that! They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands. Failed theories about its origins have been born and parroted and have died—from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather, who said simply enough, “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.150.233 (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why no usage of the Joseph Smith Daguerreotype?

Why is there no appearance of the JS daguerreotype or any mention of it in the article besides in external links? It is largely believed to be legitimate, and would be a better representation of JS than any paintings that exist? A good source for discussion on the topic is at http://www.photographfound.com/, of which I have no affiliations. It should be here in my opinion. Twunchy (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Twunchy, I don't think you will find a positive consensus among historians. In the last "Journal of Mormon History" edition there was a review of a recent book written on the topic. The review pointed out how the book's evidence supporting the claim is very...loose. I am not opposed to a copy being included in the article, but I am strongly committed that it is clear to readers that there is no consensus among historians. --^StormRider 00:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

While I haven't seen the book or the JMH article, It sounds like the daguerreotype has not been effectively peer reviewed at this point, and thus cross the threshold to becoming a reliable source. That could change in the future, but I'm inclined to leave it out for now. COGDEN 17:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Growth and persecution section needs fixing

Part of the Joseph Smith Jr.#Growth and persecution section currently reads as follows:

Following the completion of the Book of Mormon, Smith rarely any longer used his seer stone; and later "translations" were not based on purported ancient writings. He now received supernatural direction "whether a text lay before him or not."[34] From the early 1830s came the Book of Moses (which included a long passage about the biblical Enoch) as well as an attempt to revise the Bible.

The phrase "later 'translations' were not based on purported ancient writings" is incorrect: Smith later translated the Book of Abraham from an "Egyptian Book of the Dead."

The phrase "the Book of Moses...as well as an attempt to revise the Bible" may also be erroneous: to my knowledge, the Book of Moses was a part of his attempt to revise the Bible.

Also odd is the phrase "attempt to revise the Bible." He didn't attempt, I'm quite sure he did. However, using the phrase revised the Bible could be better clarified, for example: revised the King James translation of the Bible.

The phrase supernatural direction is also odd...how about divine direction?

While I'm hacking away at odd phrases, allow me to also point out the awkwardness of rarely any longer.

Comments? Feel free to implement my suggestions...otherwise if no one objects then I will address these issues myself in a day or two. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 08:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)'

You're right. I've tried to tweak this paragraph.--John Foxe (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your tweaking. Though it was better, I wasn't entirely satisfied, so I did some additional tweaking (please review). I feel there is still room for improvement, but my main concerns have been addressed. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 07:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As Bushman has written...

The phrase "as Bushman has written" appears twice in the article, and the phrase "as Richard Bushman has written" appears three times. Several months ago, I requested that we move away from using Bushman's words so frequently in the article. I don't mind so much now, the Bushman quotes add a little prosy-pizazz to the article, but can we please vary the wording when presenting a Bushman quote? ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 09:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed most of "Richard Bushman has written" phrases. If I've gone too far, please let me know.--John Foxe (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if entirely removing those phrases was necessary, but I won't complain. ;) ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 06:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As an editor who wanted the Bushman name maintained so that the reader would know where some of this originated, I would ask that not every reference within the text be removed. Thanks. A Sniper (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I left a couple mentions in the notes and another one in the text that referred to doctrinal developments. Feel free to reinsert others if you think they need to be there.--John Foxe (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks John. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Members of the clergy with criminal convictions

Joseph Smith was convicted in a court of law of glass looking on March 20, 1826 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.18.39 (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Where did you get this , SineBot? He was accused, but acquitted.68.231.189.108 (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The existence of this category is rather odd...which clergy is it referring to when it says "the clergy"? Any/all clergy...aparently. In any event...it is a technically correct categorization, I suppose. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 02:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Smith was actually convicted for a vagrancy-type offense (i.e., traveling around the countryside working for hire in a disfavored profession--of which he was, in fact, guilty, though today we would say such vagrancy-type laws are unconstitutional) is debated. Most of the witnesses to the trial say he was convicted, but one said he was discharged, and one said it was not an actual trial. Oliver Cowdrey, who was not present, said he was acquitted. So obviously, secular scholars say he was likely convicted, while apologists say he likely was not convicted. Given the lack of consensus, I don't think it's appropriate to include him in a category. COGDEN 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point--but no one can base anything on what the people of MO, NY, and IL wrote. They tried to castrate him; the Gov. of IL ordered Smith's death, etc--anyone like that is not above lying, perjury, or falsification of records.I did see a city record saying "acquitted"; will post when I find the ref.68.231.189.108 (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Magic translation via the hat

Every witness to Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon said that he looked at a stone in his hat. Arguing that Smith never said how he translated is arguing from silence. There is no evidence for anything else but the hat and just Mormon embarrassment at how silly this method must seem to most prospective converts today.Hi540 (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Alas, that beacon of neutrality raises his pencil head and demonstrates a continued misunderstanding of history and Wikipedia policy; it is getting to be a habit. First, I don't know of any LDS source that says Joseph did not use the interpreters, seer stones, or Urim & Thummim and/or also used a hat in which to keep the stones from light. This process is a known fact and it is taught by the LDS Church. In fact, no one would know about it if it were not members of the Latter Day Saint movement did not record it. How on earth could it be an embarrassment if the LDS Church teaches it? Undoubtedly, this embarrassment must be something that exists in your own narrow head. I suppose you think some man raising themselves from the dead is a common occurrence or the norm? Or that a cracker and wine turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus is normal. Please, keep the screed to yourself.

What is clear is that there are more accounts than using a hat to hold the translaters/stones. You do not possess a source that says this was the only method used for the simple reason that it does not exist. Attempting to say that Emma, Martin, and others say so therefore it must be "the only way" is a synthesis and strictly against Wikipedia policy.

What is the problem just stating that there were several methods recorded about the process and explain them? Are you trying to censor historical facts? I know it is difficult for you, but try to think and edit in a neutral manner. It really is not difficult once you put the axe down. --^StormRider 21:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you. There are no accounts of Smith translating that indicate he used any other method but the hat. You can't argue from silence. Where are the references to any other method? Even the father of lies himself didn't spell one out.Hi540 (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Father of lies", well are you so cute. Does it make you feel intelligent? I know, go in front of a mirror and say it out loud, then smile. Don't you feel so cool. It is so fun to attempt to insult the religion of others. Go ahead, think of another insult. Yay, aren't you all grown up now. Just like a big boy. Say another one, come on, you can do it if you try really hard. It's easy for one so bright as you. We all are just waiting for another one and we are all just so impressed with how big you sound. We will wait for it. So big you are. --^StormRider 06:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

StormRider, while I agree with your point, that paragraph was provocative and out of line. Please remove it.

Looking at the edit history of this article is ridiculous. You are smart people. Stop edit warring and let's talk about it. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 19:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely Bushman elaborated on other methods of translation? In any event, the accounts of people who witnessed the translation should be used carefully. See WP:PRIMARY for discussion on that. Specifically note the policy that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." I very much agree with that. Stating or even implying that the "only" method of translation used was the "magic translation via the hat" should be avoided unless a reliable source asserts that such is the case. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 19:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Our article currently says only, "To translate, Smith gazed into a stone in the bottom of his hat, a method of investigation he had used earlier while treasure seeking." Nothing about magic. A long footnote provides many of the primary sources plus a fine secondary quote from a Dialogue article.

Bushman treats the subject cautiously: "Practice with his scrying stones carried over to translation of the gold plates. In fact, as work on the Book of Mormon proceeded, a seerstone took the place of the Urim and Thummim as an aid in the work, blending magic with inspired translation." (131) Because Smith is clear that the Urim and Thummim was a stone (or stones), if there was change over the course of the translation, it was a change from one stone to another.--John Foxe (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a list of primary and secondary sources with associated quotes regarding the BoM translation method here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method. The hat is mentioned a number of times. Roger Penumbra (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought about it, but I won't remove it. It is intended to chastise an editor that has a history without any degree of neutrality and one that provides no benefit to Wikipedia. As a higher standard of expertise and knowledge of editors evolves, she would not qualify. Her only interest is to offend and twist history to meet her own POV. However, I will stop responding to her rather ignorant comments until such time as a demonstration of knowledge is made. Moving on.

Fox is correct, Bushman barely mentions the process of translation in his most recent book or in the other books that I have. Regardless, Penumbra's edit above provides some excellent sources that demonstrate a diverse translation process. Maybe we can rewrite the article to include this fact? -^StormRider 02:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The FAIR list was, of course, compiled by Mormon apologists and omits some important eyewitness testimony. Ironically the best support for a "diverse translation process" comes from non-eyewitnesses who were believers and non-eyewitnesses who were virulent anti-Mormons trying to make the process sound as absurd as possible. Eyewitnesses all say Smith used a hat. Let me suggest simply adding to the footnote a statement that Mormon apologists argue for a "diverse translation process" and include a link to the FAIR wiki.--John Foxe (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, that one footnote has grown to a monstrous size. I would prefer not to point to the multiple eyewitness accounts and quote them all. Surely we can find a reputable secondary source that has already done that.

Secondly, I think we should mention that Smith and followers believe the translation was done "by the gift and power of God" in addition to the physical means. After looking the paragraph over, I see a good spot to put it in; I will do so.

Thirdly, that is all. I just wanted to use the word "thirdly." Remember, we're not the committee who writes history. We aggregate and build off of the work that has already been done. Cheers. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 22:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that Smith acknowledged that the translation process was due to the "gift and power of God" is important. I have understood that Smith used the Urim & Thummim, the seer stone(s) he found, and nothing but direct translation through revelation. Using a hat for the purpose of blocking out the light (no magic to the hat, much to the chagrin of others) seems to be of value, but no more than the use of a sheet/blanket. I can't remember if the article includes quotes about what Smith supposedly said about how he saw the words in the stones; if not, that would be of interest to readers.

I don't think the link to FAIR is an end-all reference, but the references it uses are valid. It would be great if we could find a single source that summarizes/lists all quotes and information about the translation process. I am still looking. -^StormRider 23:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding the "gift and power of God." I doubt that many folks read the footnotes anyway, so I don't think we need to be overly concerned about their length. As they say in Wikipedese: "it's not print."--John Foxe (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

John Foxe notes, "The FAIR list was, of course, compiled by Mormon apologists and omits some important eye witness testimony." It was indeed compiled by Mormon apologists, however, there are no deliberate omissions. The list is intended to be as comprehensive as possible, and as FAIR becomes aware of additional quotes/references from any contemporary sources, they will be added to the list. Roger Penumbra (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, here are three eyewitness statements to add: those of Michael Morse, Smith's brother-in-law; Isaac Hale, Smith's father-in-law; and Smith's friend Joseph Knight, Sr. All said Smith translated the Book of Mormon by burying his face in his hat.--John Foxe (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you John. If you have them handy, could you provide the references please? (I'm thinking the Isaac Hale one might be from Mormonism Unvailed if I recall correctly - I will check) I have also added additional statements from David Whitmer that mention both the use of the Nephite interpreters without the hat and the use of the stone in the hat. (Updated to add: I just found and added Isaac Hale's comments) Roger Penumbra (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd start with the Van Wagoner and Walker article, "Joseph Smith: The Gift of Seeing," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 (2)(Summer 1982): 48–68. Then I'd systematically check Dan Vogel's Early Mormon Documents.--John Foxe (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we can say that he translated by placing a stone in a hat and placing the hat over his face to exclude the light, and then just note, perhaps even in a footnote, that other methods of translation were also suggested. Although a few people (William Smith, and a very early Martin Harris) suggest other possible ways such as actually wearing a set of stone spectacles and an attached breastplate (William, though clearly William never actually witnessed this), looking through one of the sides of the spectacles (I think Harris suggested that, since the spectacles were apparently made for a giant--Harris never actually saw this, either, but did later see Smith use the stone in a hat). But nobody says that Smith did not use the stone in a hat method, and there are numerous eye-witnesses to this method, and a virtual consensus among Mormon and secular scholars that he used this method (possibly in addition to other methods, at least according to some apologists). COGDEN 19:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that I reject is any attempt to claim there was a single method of translation (using the hat to keep out light). We know that is not accurate and attempting to portray it as such is ignoring other accounts. The wording could be looser and just allow the note to cover all methods known. -^StormRider 19:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Baloney. No other eyewitness said there was any other method. No scholarship argues for any other method. You're just pushing this POV because there's no reason to preserve golden plates for generations if Smith made no use of them. But according to all eyewitnesses that's exactly what happened. Embarrassing, isn't it?Hi540 (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My concern about the current phrasing is that it states that Smith translated the plates. This article needs to tread very carefully around the reality of the translation process: while there is no reason to be insulting towards the LDS, there is also no reason to echo the belief that any translation occurred. Saying that the act that Smith performed was "translation" implies that the golden plates were actually a testament from a supernatural being. The article needs to stick to language showing that Smith and other witnesses described the act as translation.—Kww(talk) 23:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is very clear that it is a belief that Smith translated the plates. It is redundant to repeat it in every phrase or sentence; however, if it is not clear then it should be clarified that the most significant topics about Smith's life deal with a belief system.-^StormRider 02:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi540 states, "Baloney. No other eyewitness said there was any other method. No scholarship argues for any other method...But according to all eyewitnesses that's exactly what happened."

Incorrect. David Whitmer, an eyewitness, noted two different methods of translation. In addition to the stone and hat:

"Each time before resuming the work all present would kneel in prayer and invoke the Divine blessing on the proceeding. After prayer Smith would sit on one side of a table and the amanuenses, in turn as they became tired, on the other. Those present and not actively engaged in the work seated themselves around the room and then the work began. After affixing the magical spectacles to his eyes, Smith would take the plates and translate the characters one at a time. The graven characters would appear in succession to the seer, and directly under the character, when viewed through the glasses, would be the translation in English." ("The Book of Mormon;' Chicago Tribune, December 17, 1885, 3· The Tribune correspondent visited and interviewed Whitmer on December 15, 1885, at Whitmer's home in Richmond, Missouri. )

"Embarrassing, isn't it?Hi540" You really ought to be embarrassed by your rhetoric, Hi540. There's an old story about a farmer who caught a thief stealing his chickens. The sheriff was called, but the farmer said he didn't want to press charges. "Why not?" said the sheriff. "Because I don't want to be associated with a chicken thief," said he. You ought not to pretend to act like a chicken thief (even though you are not) every time you converse with a believer. Roger Penumbra (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In many interviews, David Whitmer described Smith's use of the hat. The late quotation given above (more than fifty years after the translation was made) is an anomaly, perhaps even a reporter's misunderstanding or embellishment.Hi540 (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Early Mormon Documents contains the Chicago Tribune interview cited above with the following editorial note (5: 150): "The interview should be read with caution since it contains some rather obvious inaccuracies. While some of the errors might be due to the interviewer, other errors probably resulted from the manner in which the session with Whitmer was conducted. The reporter states that the subject was too weak and feeble to relate the account personally; one of the family members, perhaps his son David J. Whitmer, gave a narration and the Book of Mormon witness himself occasionally interrupted when he felt it necessary to make a correction or comment. According to Nathan Turner, Jr., who interviewed Whitmer on 13 April 1886, David J., with his father's approval, said 'that the reporter of the Chicago Tribune was not admitted to his room nor did he have the interview [that was] reported in the Tribune. He said the reporter was in town and had talked with members of the family, but that he was not admitted to the sick man's room as alleged and that the report was in other respects inaccurate, but his father did not wish to be always contradicting such reports and so let it pass.'"--John Foxe (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi540, thank you for your return to civility. Hi540 says, "In many interviews, David Whitmer described Smith's use of the hat." This point isn't even in contention. Whitmer described the hat method in detail in An Address to All Believers in Christ. The question is whether or not any other method of translation was ever described by an eyewitness. So here is another one to consider. Charles Anthon's statement in Mormonism Unvailed:

"This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, decyphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain, to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been decyphered "by the gift of God:' Every thing, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles." (Howe, Mormonism Unvailed 270-1. Letter dated February 17, 1834, written by Charles Anthon )

Anthon was not an eyewitness, but received his only information through eyewitness Martin Harris. Just so that you are aware, it is the opinion of some Mormon scholars and apologists that the translation was initiated using the Nephite interpreters (the two crystals set in a bow and mounted on a breastplate), thus necessitating the use of a curtain to screen Smith from his scribe (initially Martin Harris). Later, with the likely changeover occurring after the loss of the 116 pages of manuscript when the Nephite interpreters were taken away, Smith switched to the seer stone in the hat. Based upon known sources, it appears that most of the BoM was produced using the seer stone in the hat method. The term "Urim and Thummin" was not initially applied to the Nephite interpreters. The term was later retroactively applied to both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone. Roger Penumbra (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

About Anthon, we agree. Anthon describes another method of translation besides the use of the hat; but as you note, he was not an eyewitness. When, or even whether, Joseph Smith switched from the use of one sort of stone to another can only be speculation.--John Foxe (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Assasination" section needs revision.

This section contains some good information, but it is presented in a childish-sounding way (no offense meant to anybody). Alexanderaltman (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I made some changes. It still isn't great, but it's better. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 05:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked the paragraph again. Everything else being equal, I figure we can rely on Bushman and Brodie if they both tell approximately the same story.--John Foxe (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Strange citation

I commented out the following citation, which followed the statement that Smith wounded three men with his pepper-box:

<ref>Hay, J. Atlantic Monthly. Richards was unharmed. Taylor was shot several times, but survived. (One of the bullets glanced off his pocket watch.)Taylor, John. Witness to the Martyrdom. pp. 91, 114–115.;Leanord, Glen. A Place of Peace, a People of Promise. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book. Taylor, close behind the Prophet, had been using Markham's 'rascal-beater' to knock against the muskets and bayonets thrusting into the room. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |chapterurl= and |origmonth= (help)</ref>

The webpage at the beginning of the citation says nothing (that I can find with my ctrl-f skills) about Smith shooting and wounding anyone. The rest of it is just a footnote explaining what happened to Richards and Taylor. Can someone clarify what is going on here? ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 05:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as citing Smith's discharges, that can be found in the History of the Church (see the reference in the following subsection). Part of it, an account from John Taylor, says:

I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, `Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed, died...

Unless someone else does it first, I will come back tomorrow or the next day and work on inserting a proper citation.

This quote is erroneous. One pistol was given to Smith, only, by the sheriff. He hit no one with it. That's why you can't find names of who was "wounded" or "killed".68.231.189.108 (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no sheriff, and the pistol was given to Smith by a Mormon, Cyrus H. Wheelock.--John Foxe (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. As I said, and, how could a "Mormon" have sneaked in "guns" past a very hostile crowd? And, it Was the Sheriff. Your reference is wrong. I will post when I find it.68.231.189.108 (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The archives of this article will have a lot about this topic, please review it. Which two men were wounded and which ones died? BTW, the Hay article is all third party hearsay and not a reliable source. I think you will find better. -^StormRider 21:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Other citation issue

Also, I've never heard that Hyrum was shot in the face. I put an annoying {{fact}} tag on that one...can someone find a source to back that one up, please? ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 05:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: I found an Eyewitness account by John Taylor, now how to source it? Apparently it is from History of the Church, 7:99-108. Also: whoever does the citation, please also replicate it on Death of Joseph Smith, Jr.#Attack by the mob since it also includes the statement of when Hyrum exclaimed "I am a dead man."...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 05:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hyrum's death mask shows the point of entry of the bullet to be near his nose. Roger Penumbra (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Unprovable non-neutral statements- J.S. Early years. Did he share the First Vision?

I Think the early years section has gotten much better. Thank you all. Now I also have sources other than Joseph Smith himself showing he did share the first vision with others before 1830. I am following up on more. After I have gathered and organized all of them I will upload them at one time and I will delete this unprovable, undocumentable, and non-neutral statement:"Although this experience was unknown to Smith's followers until the 1840s. . . . "

Unless someone can convince me why it should stay. I thought we already debated this one to death and made some good compromises in the last section I started. So, what's up with adding unprovable, undocumented, non-neutral statements? Or, am I just so biased to the LDS perspective that in some way I am just not getting it. Please help me understand. Wmgcf (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "unknown to Smith's followers" is a generalization. Perhaps "Few of Smith's followers were familiar..." would be a better way of saying it? For understanding the idea behind the statement, see First_Vision#How_the_vision_story_has_been_presented. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 21:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the sentence to reflect B Fizz's suggested wording and added an authoritative source as citation.--John Foxe (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. But Wmgcf, I'd like to see your pre-1830 sources, if you have any. I'm not aware that any such sources exist. I don't think Lucy Mack's 1853 book counts, because she (or her editors) just quote Joseph Smith's history verbatim without adding any independent commentary or corroboration. Smith himself didn't say he told his mother about the first vision, only that he said that he learned that Presbyterianism wasn't true, so Lucy Mack likely didn't hear about the First Vision. It's not surprising that Smith didn't discuss these things with his parents. He says he had to be commanded by an angel before telling his father about Moroni, because he feared his father wouldn't believe him. There are other sources that say Smith was standing up in the Methodist probationary class and preaching that all religion was false, but he didn't apparently mention any vision, or I'm sure these sources would have said something. COGDEN 05:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The statement is a very broad brush stroke and a generalization. Do any historians make such a statement? It would seem to be the type of statement that would require a reference. If it does not have a reference, is there another way of writing the statement that is supported by a reference? --^StormRider 08:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We already have a citation to James Allen's reference, which is a good one. Allen said basically that at best, the story received only limited circulation by the early 1830s. He also says there is little, if any, evidence he was telling the story in public. He further said that "[a]s far as Mormon literature is concerned, there was apparently no reference to Joseph Smith's first vision in any published material in the 1830s. "[A]s far as non-Mormons were concerned there was little, if any, awareness of it in the 1830s." He also writes: "[I]t would appear that the general church membership did not receive information about the first vision until the 1840's and that the story certainly did not hold the prominent place in Mormon thought that it does today." COGDEN 11:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If that is what he said, shouldn't we be saying that and accord it to the author? There is a world of difference between "limited circulation" and "Unknown to Smith's followers". Let's reflect what the author says and reference. "James Allen has stated..." I also assume this is not a fringe concept amoung historians. If so, then conversation ends and we can move on.

Most historians I have read are not so quick to recount history in black and white; they always leave room for that which is not known. It is similar to those historians who can find no evidence of Smith's single conversation with a minister. Exactly how many people in history can we recount with whom they had every single conversation during their early life? It is absurd to think we are capable of doing so and it is even more absurd to draw absolute conversations when no "evidence" is found. The only person who can recount the history of Joseph Smith and was an eye witness at every event was Joseph Smith. His history and his words are valid regardless if we think him the biggest liar who ever lived. -^StormRider 18:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now the article does not say that the First Vision was "unknown to Smith's followers." It says, "Although this experience was unknown to all but a few of Smith's followers until after his death, his accounts later acquired important theological significance within the Latter Day Saint movement."

Wikipedia is based on evidence not religious belief. Certainly no historian would treat Smith's words as valid if he believed Smith "the biggest liar who ever lived." And a historian would have to make just that sort of judgment about Smith's trustworthiness. For instance, he might compare the number of times Smith denied taking plural wives with the amount of independent testimony that he was doing just that.--John Foxe (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that some historians take one slices of an individual's life and then build an entirely different story than reality. It is similar to studying Paul's life and noticing that he was one of the great persecutes of the earliest saints and then concluding what a terrible man he was. Some do that, but that does not make their conclusions accurate. In fact, one's personal perceptions of Smith's trustworthiness are irrelevant. A historian approaches the topic with a clean slate and allows the facts to tell the story. To ignore Smith's own account of his history is POV of the highest order; it is not history that would be written, but a twisting of it to meet the objectives of the writer. I believe the editor above was only seeking for a neutral approach. I support that. I also support quoting references that are not fringe, but I do not support taking a references and making it say more than it does. -^StormRider 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A better analogy is to the vision of St. Paul recorded in 2 Corinthians 12.2-4, where he says he was caught up to the Third Heaven and "heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak." The incident is not currently mentioned in his Wikipedia article; and I think it would be absurd to argue that the experience should be covered there and be assumed to be true simply on the grounds that Paul says so, that he is the only person who can accurately recount his own history.--John Foxe (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the current sentence for the first vision in the early years is the most fair so far.:

"According to Smith, he received his First Vision around 1820, a vision in which he said he saw and heard the voice of Jesus. Although this experience was unknown to all but a few of Smith's followers until after his death, his accounts later acquired important theological significance within the Latter Day Saint movement.[5]"

The sources I was talking seem to be well known to the people participating in this discussion. We may not have the diary of the preacher who Joseph said persecuted him for telling the first vision. However, there were so many people close to him during that time who wrote later, like his mother, who affirmed what he said. That is the evidence I was talking about. I would be seriously surprised if an account was found from 1830 of someone who knew Joseph in the early years and was surprised by his account of the first vision. And I think we have put to rest the absurd arguments against inclusion of the first vision in the early years. Anyway, I mainly wanted a reasonable mention of the first vision in the early years. Thank you Wikipedia. Next week I want to work on something else. WMGCF98.108.141.145 (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Lucy Mack's account does not confirm Joseph Smith's details about the first vision. Joseph Smith's 1838 account was inserted verbatim into Lucy's book by her collaborator Martha Coray after Lucy's original account didn't mention it. There is nobody I'm aware of that even claimed to have heard Joseph Smith story of the first vision prior to 1830. COGDEN 05:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wmgcf, you said you had "sources other than Joseph Smith himself showing he did share the first vision with others before 1830." Why don't you either document that statement or apologize for it?--John Foxe (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

COgden and John Foxe, this discussion is going nowhere. Changes have already been made, and all parties are fairly happy with the early years section as it currently stands. I'm sure that if anyone knows of good sources, that those sources will eventually find their way into the article. Until then, let's give this topic a rest, and move on to something else. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 16:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I second B Fizz. However, just to be clear, and so anyone following up knows I am sincere, I will explain a little more about the evidence I have been talking about:

1) as I said above: "there were so many people close to him during that time who wrote later, like his mother, who affirmed what he said". True, Lucy Mack Smith did copy Joseph's written account verbatim - which is her affirmation of what Joseph wrote. In her book, Lucy didn't express after-the-fact surprise on hearing of Joseph's vision.

2) I could refer any interested party (post your question on my talk page) to some testimonies of people who were very close to Joseph and said they believed Joseph's account of the first vision. I am not aware that other family members, and friends like Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmer brothers were others who were close to him during the early years expressed surprise about the first vision after 1830.

I am not claiming to have a diaries of the methodist preachers who Joseph said treated him badly when he told them about his vision [2] but there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that he shared his vision with others before 1830. And I do have the understanding from an expert (don't ask me for the critic's names, I don't read the critics) that many critics of Joseph agree he told others about his vision during the early years.

One last thought, the compromise we have come to is very similar to the way Wikipedia handled Mohammed's vision. I think that similarity is a good sign that our compromise on this is more professional and encyclopedic than prior versions of the early years.Wmgcf (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The current wording is simply more accurate than it was a week ago. For getting the revision process started I thank you. Nevertheless, it still rankles that you could claim to have "sources other than Joseph Smith himself showing he did share the first vision with others before 1830" although you had none; nor will you apologize for saying that you did. I repeat, there is no evidence, documentary or circumstantial, that Joseph Smith ever shared the First Vision with anyone before the founding of the Church. If you had proved me wrong, I would have apologized.--John Foxe (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, with this caveat, of course: no evidence other than Smith's own statement. COGDEN 22:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr Foxe, I do believe that I understand your point of view on this matter. I don't think you and I will come to an exact agreement on this point. I don't think this article needs you and I to exactly agree with each other. I am a newbie but I now have a greater appreciation for the community and understand why some compromise is necessary. I have admitted my deep pro-Joseph Smith LDS bias. I don't want to turn this discussion into a wmgcf - John Foxe discussion, so if you desire continued explanation of my POV on this matter, I invite you to post to my personal talk page and I will be happy to explain more there - I am willing to go in great detail through what I know of the people who knew Joseph during the early years. But I still don't hope this proposed exercise could make you embrace my POV. I am just offering to share my POV on my talk page and answer questions. Wmgcf (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad you now have a better idea about how Wikipedia works. I've never been much interested in unloading my own POV on others—I'd be a terrible blogger—which is one reason why I enjoy Wikipedia. It's a place where I can try to make the good better and the unclear clearer.--John Foxe (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

John, you are certainly a good wordsmith and over time you have become a more neutral editor. It might be more fair to say that we each acknowledge our own POV and attempt to be neutral. At times we do better than at others, but we always make our best efforts. -^StormRider 00:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be late on the topic. An "Ensign" article details First Vision accounts, by date, and identifies the first public document as a missionary tract in Europe: Orson Pratt’s publication, the first publicly disseminated, of the Prophet’s vision in his Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, issued in 1840 in Edinburgh, Scotland. The article includes many references which might be useful should the topic need expansion. Ensign, April 1996, Joseph Smith’s Testimony of the First Vision, by Richard L. Anderson. WBardwin (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned article on lds.org — I skimmed over it; it does look quite relevant for those interested. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 02:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This is probably more pertinent to the First Vision article, and I think there is already a citation there to Anderson's Ensign article, though there are better academic citations (i.e., in BYU Studies) to most of the content of that article. COGDEN 09:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Modern Testators

Hey all.

Seeing no further discourse on my past post I would like input before including a new section.

One unique facet of Joseph Smith's life and influence is the on-going belief of his divine and prophetic role as Prophet, Seer, and translator still held by Church members today. In essence that his religion (the religion he believed) continues to grow and be embraced by millions worldwide.

Here is my proposal;

Modern Testators of the Ministry of Joseph Smith

While over 150 years has passed since the death of Joseph Smith, many continue to hold him in high regard as a great prophet and translator of scripture. In the October 2009 General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (Apostle and member of the Quorum of the Twelve) addressed Church members as follows:

"...Before closing the book [of Mormon], Hyrum turned down the corner of the page from which he had read, marking it as part of the everlasting testimony for which these two brothers were about to die. I hold in my hand that book, the very copy from which Hyrum read, the same corner of the page turned down, still visible. Later, when actually incarcerated in the jail, Joseph the Prophet turned to the guards who held him captive and bore a powerful testimony of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Shortly thereafter pistol and ball would take the lives of these two testators. As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness. In this their greatest—and last—hour of need, I ask you: would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book (and by implication a church and a ministry) they had fictitiously created out of whole cloth? Never mind that their wives are about to be widows and their children fatherless. Never mind that their little band of followers will yet be “houseless, friendless and homeless” and that their children will leave footprints of blood across frozen rivers and an untamed prairie floor.

Never mind that legions will die and other legions live declaring in the four quarters of this earth that they know the Book of Mormon and the Church which espouses it to be true. Disregard all of that, and tell me whether in this hour of death these two men would enter the presence of their Eternal Judge quoting from and finding solace in a book which, if not the very word of God, would brand them as imposters and charlatans until the end of time? They would not do that! They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands. Failed theories about its origins have been born and parroted and have died—from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather, who said simply enough, “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several problems with including that as a section. The sheer length of the quotation is one. The fact that it argues just one point of view is another. Yet another is that it argues a point (the authenticity of the Book of Mormon) that is related but still tangential to this article's scope (the life of Joseph Smith). Combine these problems and the neutrality of the article is wrecked. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a soapbox for everyone's views on a subject, but to neutrally describe the known facts, scholarly research, and notable viewpoints regarding it. I think what you have proposed crosses the line from describing a viewpoint to espousing it. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am more concerned about the length of the quote than anything else. I disagree that it is POV; it is a statement by a leader of this church. It would be POV if Wikipedia was placed in the position of stating this, but as long as it is attributed to a person, it is neutral and meets the standards of NPOV. However, the quote is very long and I am not sure it is needed in the article. -^StormRider 22:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Storm is right that such a quotation is impossibly long. It also provides no information about Joseph Smith. Even if an important LDS official denied the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, it would hardly be relevent to quote him here, as opposed to say, quoting a few words from his statement in the articles on the Book of Mormon or the LDS Church. But in this particular instance, we hold this truth to be self-evident: believers believe.--John Foxe (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful feedback. I had considered revising the section to include a variety of modern statements by varied LDS leaders but agree this might look like "soapboxing." One short quote would seem to evidence the common reagrd of Church members and leaders toward Joseph Smith. Here is a much abbreviated revision, comments?

(Heading)Modern Testators of the Ministry of Joseph Smith

(Body)While over 150 years has passed since the death of Joseph Smith, most LDS church members, including senior church leaders continue to hold him in high regard as a great prophet and translator of scripture as evidenced in the following statement of Jeffrey R. Holland, a member of the Church’s Quorum of the Twelve; “[Joseph Smith’s] life asked and answered the question ‘Do you believe God speaks to man?’ In all else that he accomplished in his brief 38 and a half years, Joseph left us above all else the resolute legacy of divine revelation—not a single, isolated revelation without evidence or consequence … but specific, documented, ongoing directions from God” (“Prophets, Seers, and Revelators,” Ensign, Nov. 2004, p. 8) Source: “Witnesses of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Ensign, Jan 2009, 10–15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Early years - treasure hunting and First Vision

Hi, I am improving this article my deleting trivial information about Joseph's treasure hunting days and adding the first vision he had - which oddly enough wasn't included. I find it odd that multiple users are trying to undo my revisions and writing messages to me accusing me of vandalism and edit wars- yet those undoing my revisions are not responding to my direct efforts to engage them on the content of the revisions. So I am posting here.

If anyone has a problem with the revisions, then I invite them to discuss the article with me here before undoing my revision. If users undo my revision and fail to discuss content while accusing me of vandalism and edit war, then, I want to invite them to discuss the article here.

Joseph is loved or hated around the world for his religious history, which began with his first vision. While it is true that he did do some treasure hunting, in history he was a religious figure, not a treasure hunter. Wmgcf (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you need to familiarize yourself with the many rules of Wikipedia before you end up getting blocked. Everything you do must adhere to the rules of neutrality, as I stated at your own talk page. If several established users are reverting you, it means you are most likely breaking those rules by purging documented info. There are many editors at this article of varied backgrounds, working somewhat smoothly to get an encyclopaedic work. Slow down. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Nobody has yet to say anything about the content I added. Exactly what part of the content I added is not "neutral", and why?. Also, nobody has explained why a very lengthy discussion of treasure hunting is "neutral". And, even if the treasure hunting material is documented, how is it relevant to this article? Why should an encyclopedia article include trivial material? We could just as easily argue that the article should include lengthy discussions of the weather in the 1820's and document the crops the smith family grew. All of that could be documented along with treasure hunting. . . so there has to be more of a standard than just documentation to include material in an encyclopedia article. Wmgcf (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Smith's scrying is not trivial. If a fellow first says he can find gold by looking in a stone and then says that he's found golden plates he can translate by looking in a stone, a neutral observer will want to make a comparison of the instances. As for the sentences you added (as opposed to the paragraphs you deleted), the First Vision is mentioned in the section on the early years of the church, where it belongs chronologically.--John Foxe (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I agree that the First Vision should be included in the Early years section, since that is when Smith claimed that it occurred. The way the article stands, (in the Early years of the church section) it explains next to nothing about what the First Vision was, besides the fact that it was a theophany.

Having said that, Wmgcf, your consistent removal of cited material is absolutely abhorrent. It is you who should find consensus on the talk page when making such a drastic change before bringing it into effect. Remember that this article has been worked on by many people, Mormons and non-Mormons alike, for several years. When several different editors are reverting your changes, you are most likely the one at fault. Welcome to Wikipedia, and please don't be offended by my strong words. We always need fresh blood to work on making Wikipedia's articles better.

Finally: Sniper, it made me laugh quietly to myself to see that you spell 'encyclopaedic' with an 'a'. Keep up the good work. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 05:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The position of the First Vision in the article was moved down this past June on the suggestion of COGDEN: "The First Vision is very important theologically, but almost insignificant historically. It should get one sentence, like 'Looking back to his early teens, Smith said he had a theophany.'" The problem, of course, is that there's absolutely no evidence that Smith shared the First Vision with anyone until after the founding of the Church.--John Foxe (talk) 10:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, not exactly sure about that one B Fizz. Up here that's the way it is spelled: see Britannica here! ;) A Sniper (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The importance of the First Vision may be a complex issue. When discussing St. Bernadette of Lourdes, her visitations are the focus of her story, but she accomplished much in her short history of 35 years though she did not found a church; it is a rich history none-the-less. The overall significant point of Joseph Smith's life is his founding a church. What were the motivating factors of beginning that church? That answer(s) should be one of the focuses of this article. He did not wake up at 25 years old and say I will start my own church. There was a process of events that led to that end; the translation of the Book of Mormon and the First Vision played their part. -^StormRider 17:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with including a sentence on the First Vision in the Early Years section. It's just that the amount said about it needs to be proportional to its historical (not retrospective religious) importance. By far, the most historically important events in Smith's early life were the visits of the angel Moroni and the translation of the golden plates. This is what he got notoriety for, and it was what the newspapers were reporting at the time, and it's what drew converts into the church. The First Vision is historically important, but if we only have three paragraphs to devote to this period, I think the first one ought to be devoted to his basic family and geographic background, the second to his religious and folk-religious background and employment history (one sentence about the First Vision could fit here--basically just saying that he later recounted having a theophany). The third ought to be devoted to the plates. COGDEN 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As a newbie I am beginning to understand what many are telling me about deleting material, so I decided to take a break on deleting material. However I challenge Mr. Foxe to explain to us why it is "neutral" to include a lengthy section on treasure hunting in the early years while claiming that the first vision has to be confined to the church section. Foxe, your statement "there's absolutely no evidence that Smith shared the First Vision with anyone until after the founding of the Church" is a pretty sweeping statement - on what evidence and sources do you base such a broad statement? How can you defend the neutrality of such a statement? I you were presented with new evidence tomorrow would you reconsider?Wmgcf (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion, Wmgcf. Because I can't prove a negative, you'll have to produce the evidence that Smith shared the First Vision story before founding the Church. (Smith's self-serving statement that he told some unnamed clergyman doesn't count because, again, there's no confirmation.)--John Foxe (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you John Foxe for agreeing that a negative statement like "there's absolutely no evidence that Smith shared the First Vision with anyone until after the founding of the Church" can't be proven. Then you said to me "you'll have to produce the evidence. . ." Now please explain to me, why I have to prove my position with evidence, when you admit your position is unproveable?? Why should I carry the burden of proof? Wmgcf (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Because if you don't, you effectively agree that I'm right.--John Foxe (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

hmm, interesting conclusion, John Foxe. I see it differently: failure to produce the exact evidence that you are looking for would lead me to a different conclusion than yours: "there's absolutely no evidence that Smith shared the First Vision with anyone until after the founding of the Church". But I am interested in providing evidence he did share his vision during the early years. So, what exactly would you accept as satisfactory evidence that: Joseph did tell others about the first vision during his early years?98.108.141.145 (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If I say there's absolutely no evidence that you're a space alien, it's not logical to believe you are one simply because it's not possible to prove a negative. If someone wishes to argue you are a space alien, they must provide evidence.

There is no evidence that Joseph Smith shared the First Vision with anyone before the founding of the Church, so I'll accept any evidence you can find. Happy hunting!--John Foxe (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You're both missing the point. We are not to prove whether or not Smith did this or that. We are to help people understand that millions of his followers believe x, y, and z about him, and that historical records outside of the church assert q, r, and s. While it would be wonderful to get The Truth (tm) out on Wikipedia, that simply can't be done 100% accurately when we're dealing with people who lived and died over a hundred years ago.

I said that I wanted more in this article about the First Vision. COgden has said "the amount said about it (the First Vision) needs to be proportional to its historical (not retrospective religious) importance." I disagree; retrospective religious importance is much more relevant to today's readers than is historical importance. This biography need not be strictly a recounting of historical events; Smith's impact on people today is much more useful to understand than is his impact on people a hundred years ago. As we step chronologically through Smith's life, when he says something happened at some point in time, or when others say something happened at some point, it is at that point that it should be included.

The Hinckley quote in First_Vision#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints illustrates well one example of how important Joseph Smith, Jr. and the First Vision are to some people who are alive today. Generally, to achieve NPOV, we have presented what Smith's followers believe, and what his critics believe, as well as proven facts and events. Many followers consider the First Vision to be a turning point in Smith's life; whether or not it was, this belief should be clearly presented. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 00:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The First Vision is indeed a very important part of the LDS religion. However, it was not a very prominent part of Joseph Smith's documented history, or even of the religion during Smith's own lifetime. Indeed, the secular historical perspective (which is vastly the majority view) is that the first vision didn't happen or all, or happened much differently than Smith's 1838 reconstruction. Articles about the religion should indeed make a big deal about it. However, this part of the article is about Smith's history, and the theophany's importance to that history is dwarfed by the importance of the golden plates. As to those who believe on religious grounds that the First Vision was a turning point in his life, that is religion, not history. It's not even really directly supported by Joseph Smith's own history, without making a lot of inferences. It's purely a matter of faith at this point, so we need to be careful not to present faith as if it were documented history. If we want to have a separate section about the significance of Joseph Smith to Mormonism, that kind of thing would go there.

As to whether or not Smith discussed the first vision prior to the founding of the church, though, I don't think that is really relevant. The main problem with providing significant weight to the First Vision in a historical section is that it is a historical section. To portray something as a major historical milestone when its status as a historical milestone has not backed by any documented history--only faith--is not exactly neutral. From a purely historical perspective, the First Vision's prominence is dwarfed by the prominence of Moroni and the golden plates, and is probably slightly less prominent than Smith's treasure hunting profession. Far more has been written by professional historians about the plates and the treasure hunting than has been written about the First Vision. COGDEN 03:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The historical perspective is important, but it was Joseph Smith who wrote the accounts of what he said he experienced. In addition, he was the one who positioned its importance. To qualify it for him or to determine what is a priority is to take a POV. Having said that I find no problem in stating the what historians think of what Joseph called his first vision. What does any article dismiss so much and base the article solely on what is determined "historical".

If anything, I think there are judgements being made about Smith and completely ignoring what Smith says about Smith. Wikipedia should never be placed in the position of making decisions of discarding some things because we determine other things are more important. The choice is to determine to ignore what Smith said was important about his life's experiences (and the churches that descend from him) and assume that we know best about what is important or what is "true". I think your position is on very thin ice and either skirts POV issues or completely breaks them. -^StormRider 05:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV policy includes WP:UNDUE, which balances the relative prominence of article material based on the relative prominence of the subject matter in the field. The field here his history. If the field were LDS religious views, then the First Vision would receive much more prominence. I'm not saying that the vision should be ignored, only that it should receive a significantly lower billing than the golden plates and events leading up thereto. COGDEN 07:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[user:Storm Rider|, [User:COGDEN|, and [User:B Fizz|; thank you for your excellent points. I was trying to illustrate that Mr. Foxe's perspective of trying to restrict what goes in the early years wasn't neutral at all. I think I made my point amply by driving the logic to absurdity. (Before I go further I confess to Wikipedia that I am biased because I am an Elder in the LDS church and a descendant of the Smith family) Using points from the three of you I will attempt to Summarize this section in the smallest amount of words possible. I am drafting new material for the early years with notes and references and I promise not to delete anything anybody else wrote for the next 5 days and if nobody beats me to it, 7 days from today I will add my stuff to the early years. Wmgcf (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As to talk's summary below, I don't think it's quite fair to say that it is critics of Joseph Smith who are promoting the significance of his work as a hired stone seer. This is significant both in mainstream apologetic and non-apologetic literature. Look, for example, at Bushman's Rough Rolling Stone, which is an apologetic work. Overall, Smith's profession as a seer is more prominently featured in historical literature than was the First Vision. Maybe not vastly more, but more. Part of this is probably because it is so intertwined with the subject matter of the golden plates, whereas the First Vision is really not. But in any event, in the professional literature, the prominence of both of the First Vision and Smith's seer work are dwarfed in comparison to the prominence of the golden plates. And this makes sense, because without the golden plates, there would be no Mormonism--just a crystal seer who said he saw God, and that was not particularly unusual or noteworthy in the early 1800s.

This article should certainly not feature the First Vision more prominently than it is featured in mainstream apologetic literature, such as Bushman's Rough Rolling Stone, where he devotes 27 pages to Smith's early life to 1827, but only about five pages relate to the First Vision. That's less than 20%. And Bushman is a solid apologist. Secular scholars feature the First Vision even less prominently. I don't think we have to be super-precise about the relative prominence of subject matter in this section, but Bushman's 20% as an apologist ought to give us a rough idea as to how much prominence would be impermissible in a Wikipedia article. So in a section this size, I think that means the First Vision gets about one sentence. Maybe some additional brief discussion for context. But I think that the First Vision can be adequately covered in just a sentence. We don't really need more than that because if we start putting in detail (e.g., if we start citing one particular version of the First Vision story and ignore others), we have to do lots of explaining in order to ensure neutrality. Rather than go down this road, we ought to just state the undisputed facts in a sentence, and if the reader wants to know more, she can go to the First Vision article. COGDEN 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"...if we start putting in detail [about the First Vision] we have to do lots of explaining in order to ensure neutrality." This is a very good point. While I feel the First Vision should be explained a little more (than it was), there comes a point at which one factoid requires three other sub-factoids to make it a "neutral" presentation. The current Early years section, as it stands (quite changed from just a few days ago), does a fairly good job of keeping it short and sweet, mentioning the unawareness of the early saints, while explaining (and implying) the importance it has to today's Latter Day Saints. I am satisfied with the change. Keep up the good work.

On a related note, the recent changes by COgden have explained the Moroni visitations quite well. One possible mistake: the reference on the sentence "Smith's treasure seeking associates...began to ransack the places they thought the plates might be" appears to apply to something else. That would be a good sentence to provide a proper source quotation for. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 04:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the citation problem.--John Foxe (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Room for more discussion here. . .

First draft of the section summary by Wmgcf, feel free to improve it, or anyone who I offended when I deleted treasure hunting stuff seven or ten times is welcome to delete the summary for revenge. If you delete the summary instead of editing it I will not send you strange messages calling you a vandal and threatening to block you from Wikipedia. But other users might who didn't actually read this discussion and know I gave you permission might call you a vandal and threaten to block you from Wikipedia, so vandalize thoughtfully! I propose if anyone wants to discuss more that they post it BEFORE the section summary, that way the section summary will always be at the end of the section.Wmgcf (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Slightly improved by me. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 05:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here, but it is my understanding that in the First Vision Joseph did not merely hear the voice of Jesus Christ, he saw and heard both Heavenly Father and his son Jesus Christ. This is a central message in the First Vision as it relates directly to a unique perspective Joseph taught concerning the Godhead, that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ were two distinct beings and not merely one being in different forms. I would recommend the sentence simply be revised from, "Many years later Smith said he had experienced a theophany around 1820, a vision in which he said he saw and heard the voice of Jesus" to "Many years later Smith said he had experienced a theophany around 1820, a vision in which he said he saw and heard both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ speak to him." (Reference, Joseph Smith History, 1:17)It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.41.56 (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Section Summary

1. Critics of J.S. want to see ample mention of Treasure Hunting in the early years because it provides an alternate perspective on his early life and later experiences with the golden plates.
2. Neutral observers might casually note that critics and J.S. people have been duking it out on treasure hunting allegations on some level ever since 1827. They might call both sides silly on this point.
3. According to believers (and the later writings of J.S) he had a theophany during his early years.
4. This theophany has special religious significance to the LDS church (and has it's own Wikipedia article).
5. All agree that the early years doesn't need a big section about the first vision, and it shouldn't read like an LDS missionary sermon.
6. Believers want to see sufficient mention of the first vision, and why it was important to J.S. early years, and why people care today.
7. All interested parties agree that later on Joseph did write down the first vision and why it was important to him.
8. The entire improvement of adding mention of the first vision to the early years shouldn't take more than 3-4 encyclopedia style sentences.

Zion's Camp accomplishments

Our article, in the Zion in Missouri section, currently states:

Smith tried to organize a military response from Kirtland—a revelation had told him that "the redemption of Zion must needs come by power"—but the trek of what came to be called Zion's Camp ended with nothing accomplished.

There has been a recently reverted attempt to clarify the phrase "nothing accomplished." While I agree with the revert—the level of detail was too granular for this article, and it had the flavor of POV—I also agree with the original intent of the reverted content. The scope of "nothing accomplished" should be clarified. Quoth the Zion's Camp article:

Although the march failed in its primary objective, many of its participants became committed loyalists in the movement. When Smith returned to Kirtland, he organized the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the First Quorum of the Seventy, choosing primarily men who had served in Zion's Camp.

We should say something like that here, though more succinctly, if possible. We might also consider moving some of the reverted content into the Zion's Camp article. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 19:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the sentence, dropping the "nothing accomplished" to point up the failed prophecy instead. And I've added text from Brodie and Bushman to the footnotes. I've also modified the Zion's Camp article to put more weight on Smith's failure. (That article has no citations except for the ones I just added.)--John Foxe (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I made some further edits here. I'm not married to them, though, so feel free to change or revert as appropriate. COGDEN 22:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think yours is better than mine and probably less contentious to boot.--John Foxe (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the changes are better and less contentious. I still wanted to see mention of the many Zion's Camp participants that later became leaders in the church, so I added another sentence. It was a little awkward though; please read the change and fix it up a little. I insist on the change, though, because I see it as a logical sequence in Smith's life: trying times at Zion's Camp followed by the organization of the Quorum of the Twelve and the Quorum of the Seventy, mostly consisting of Zion's Camp participants. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 08:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Further edits by COgden and John Foxe have made a very concise, accurate statement. Good work, guys. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 02:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of Brodie

Hi John. I wonder why you would reference Brodie here as she is clearly an unreliable source (see Wikipedia's own posts on her work). She was in love with Thomas Jefferson, many other researchers questioned her methods, she was heavy into the idea Nixon had a gay lover... . I don't mind criticism and alternate points of view, but am concerned about using manipulated or sketchy evidences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with Brodie's strengths and weaknesses. The Wikipedia article on her is largely my work. Because Bushman is LDS, I try to use Rough Stone Rolling as a major source when I'm editing Mormon topics; but No Man Knows My History holds up well for being more than sixty years old. Brodie could revel in the inconsistencies of Mormon history, whereas Bushman has to pick his way around them. And what a confident style Brodie had as a thirty-year-old!--John Foxe (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi John

The more I have looked into your last post the more concerned I have become. I respect the fact that you have researched Fawn Brodie and contributed your findings to Wikipedia. The problem I have is with what I would call 'circular evidencing.' This is quite similar to many of the early anti-Mormon writings where "researchers" would present a false finding, after which other anti-Mormon researchers would quote that 'fact' and the whole falsehood would be accepted and validified based on its frequency of being referenced.

The fact you are quoting Brodie as an expert (her bias seems to throw her more appropriately into the category of skeptic) and then back that up with the fact you yourself have referenced her elsewhere suggests a more narrow reliability, not greater.

My main question becomes, to what degree have you looked fairly and critically into Brodie's research? Have you both read and explored the merits of Nibley's response to Brodie? It appears in your article you simply gave Brodie the last word on Nibley's paper, and Brodie's response was merely rhetorical. In debate that is poor form. Do you concur with Brodie? Could you tell me what some of your findings as you researched Nibley's claims were? No offense, but the majority of your other contributions present information neutral or respectful of the Evangelical Christian history, but not so Mormon history. No doubt my Mormon background may make me more skeptical of criticism and less reliable a contributor on this topic. Your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.41.56 (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I had thought that this was discussed before, but in digging through the archives, I found the section I was remembering was an "Is Bushman authoritative" section, and not Brodie. In any event, I know absolutely nothing about the reliability of Brodie, but I trust John Foxe, StormRider, and others who have previously supported the inclusion of her material to illustrate a different side of the Smith story. Obviously we can't take her as an end-all source, but whether or not she was involved in 'circular evidencing', I don't think it is much of a concern here, since no one has proven her participation in such a thing to be true. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 08:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Brodie's work is still the second most prominent work on Smith's life, after Bushman's. It's not perfect, but for a generation, it was the most prominent work in the field. It is cited by non-Mormons and apologists alike. It was also one of the first New Mormon History works (works that were neither hagiographic, polemically apologetic, nor polemically anti-Mormon). So citation to it in this article is very appropriate. COGDEN 17:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I would use Brodie, but I would agree that she is not neutral. When she wrote he book on Smith she was very clear that her objective was to debunk him as a prophet. When a historian begins with a final conclusion, you know that there is something wrong. Brodie ignores references that conflict with her POV. This does not mean she should not be used, but rather that I use her when it does not get me into trouble. -^StormRider 21:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Number and quality of referenced researchers

Along this line, I am quite concerned at the narrow scope of referenced researchers. Despite the fact some view Bushman and Brodie as key researchers (I definitely question Brodie here) I'm concerned about the over-referencing of these two. If I handed a paper into one of my profs with over a hundred references and over two-thirds of them were from the same two sources (one only questionably reliable) I would expect to be questioned critically. I mean with whole departments at BYU (which does have a tenured program) devoted to religious studies and Church History I'm sure you could find more than one "reliable" Mormon source (Maxwell? Jensen? Holland? Nibley?).

My apologies if I sound disrespectful of the contributions and efforts here, I just continue to see this article as narrow in its use of reliable references. Please, to those posting and contributing, let's find some other sources than Bushman and Brodie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is your comparison of an encyclopedia article to a term paper. Our goal at Wikipedia is to write articles largely based on the best secondary sources available, and among them for this article are Bushman and Brodie. (Bushman is especially good because he's both LDS and an academic, in general respected by both Mormons and non-Mormons.) Once you decide that folks like Hugh Nibley are neutral sources of information, then there's also no reason not to accept say, Jerald and Sandra Tanner and Walter Martin as well—and we won't have an encyclopedia article but a war of words. (By the way, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end.)--John Foxe (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we would agree on not referencing 'fringe' researchers, but there is nothing yet proven unreliable or unethical about the research by Jeffrey Holland (former University President), or Marlin Jensen (Church Historian). Just because a person believes in something does not make their research on that topic unreliable. I notice you have a strong familiarity with the most prominent Anti-Mormon writers (Tanners, Martin, and I would add Brodie based on her own stated frustrations) and studied at a major Evangelical University. But I would not discount your research on Christianity or Evangelism if you were to write on the topic. I don't agree with everything Nibley said, but some of his research is quite insightful. And still remains the absence of Jensen and Holland. Canadiandy

What could Holland or Jensen add to what Bushman has written besides their LDS POV? Neither is a professional historian: Holland was an English major, and Jensen is a lawyer.--John Foxe (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Jensen is a lawyer? That means he can not be a historian? Granted he may not be a professional historian (if by professional you mean paid for a living to do it) but if you look at his years of service as the official Church Historian, the diverse and respected organizations to which he has presented, and the publication of "The Joseph Smith Papers" which he has overseen, I suggest he is a better historian than any of us here and would gladly pit his intellect and academic integrity against that of Brodie. Brodie may be prominent (so is Rush Limbaugh) but my Mom always taught me you don't have to be in "Who's Who" to know what's what. I would propose it is wiser to steer toward fair-mindedness and integrity and away from "Prominence" or mere academic popularity. Mao is pretty popular in China I hear. Doesn't make him reliable though does it? Canadiandy

I asked what Holland or Jensen could add to what Bushman has written? I said nothing about Brodie.--John Foxe (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My post was in reference to your rejection of Jensen based on his being a lawyer. You wrote, "Neither is a professional historian: Holland was an English major, and Jensen is a lawyer." That Jensen is more reliable than Brodie was a secondary point.

---

On another point, I am declaring defeat. If it is already a given that the "Prominent" scholars on Joseph Smith are an obsessed anti-Mormon and one Mormon scholar whose admitted focus was predominantly on the unique foibles and shortcomings of Joseph Smith (guess it would be bad research if we looked at the man's strengths and writings); if this is the foundation of the structure then would be wasting my time (I have kids, a job and a life) and doubt I would be accomplishing anything criticizing the plans. Again, I will summarize my concerns lest any care to pick up my own marathon of hope at a later date.

1. While Joseph Smith's influence on religion, his role as a martyr of American religious freedom, and the legacy of good he left behind, are powerful and arguably unparalleled in modern religious experience; this article focuses predominantly on issues which are more contentious out of context in more modern society (i.e. polygamy, "treasure hunting," militaristic tendencies).

2. Despite the large school of researchers who have written effectively and reliably on the subject of Joseph Smith, the mantra that Brodie and Bushman are the most "prominent" writers on the subject seems to justify their over-usage.

3. Contributors here seem cautious about using LDS researchers because of their potentially biased POV. That is except for Bushman perhaps because he is comfortable finding fault with Joseph. At the same time the most active contributor (graduate of an Evangelical University, Evangelicals as a collective forming potentially the largest community of LDS critics, think Huckabee v. Romney) who plays the greatest role in guiding what is included and reliable is never questioned on his own POV.

4. Despite the fact that a large religious movement (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) continues to revere Joseph Smith as a great Prophet and revelator, religious sensitivities seem to draw closer to those shown Jim Jones or Tammy Faye Baker than those shown the Catholic Popes, Billy Graham, or the Reverend Martin Luther King. I guess political correctness doesn't apply to Mormons.

I concede that I have not studied Joseph Smith as critically as others here and so need to concede victory here. I merely wish to reflect that as a modern day member of the Church founded by Joseph Smith Jr., the article here is heavy on criticism and light on sensitivity.

Just my POV. Don't worry, I won't go away mad, I'll just go away.

Excelsior! Canadiandy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree. As to Brodie being "biased", no historian is truly objective. A truly objective history, even if it were possible, would be rather boring. Every good history has a historical theory to prove, and that includes Bushman, whose theory is that Joseph Smith was a rough stone rolling--meaning that he was rough around the edges, but those edges were smoothed by his life experience. All this is irrelevant, though. What matters is that Bushman and Brodie are by far the most prominent comprehensive overviews of Smith's life, so there is nothing wrong with heavy reliance on them--particularly to support broad conclusory statements in the article. There are many other secondary sources that delve more deeply into specific areas of Smith's life and have become the predominant source as to that particular aspect of his life (e.g., Quinn as to magical practices and organizational development, Jessee as to manuscripts, Buerger as to temple ceremony development, etc.), and we can cite these too, or instead. COGDEN 21:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure we have a significant disagreement, but rather we refine it differently. For me when a historian tells you her objective is to prove X and then ignores information that conflicts with her theses statement, she is no longer a historian, but has evolved into a something less than historian, a polemic. Brodie is honest and clear that she has an objective. When known references existed that conflicted with her objective, she ignored some of them. This does not mean that her entire work is unreliable, but that on some points, she needs her worked checked by other historians who include all references and do not exclude them. She meets the standards of a reliable reference.

I agree that all historians have a POV and none of perfectly neutral. But, I also believe historians are being intellectually dishonest when they purposefully disregard information with the objective of furthering their POV. When reviewing historians it is the degree to which information is allowed to form the conclusion that is vital, not their theses statement. The more information is ignored or omitted to form the conclusion, the more one moves from being a historian and devolves into being a polemic.

It is just as dishonest of us to ignore the obvious. Attempting to qualify or excuse Brodie's penchant for ignoring known references that conflict with her desired conclusion falls flat. This accusation is very difficult to put at Bushman's feet; he omits nothing.

Nibley, Tanner, Martin, et al, have value, but are used more judiciously because they each are more significant polemics; they do not parade as anything else. Foxe is correct in his summary of them and if we open the door to them, we open the door to all biased writings, of which there is a plethora. --^StormRider 21:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I think all historians ignore historical information that does not fit within their theory. That's because determining what historical data is credible, pertinent, or accurate is a judgment call. If a data point fits within the historian's theory, then it is more likely to be considered relevant and credibile; if it doesn't fit within the theory, it is considered to be an anomaly. Bushman does exactly the same thing as Brodie in his own analysis, although he usually makes a great effort to at least comment on what he considers to be the "outlying data", and to point out alternate theories incorporating that data (and frequently he is noncommittal about which theory he favors, as if his book were a Wikipedia article). I wouldn't call Brodie polemical. Like 99+% of the world's population, she didn't believe that Smith was a prophet, so she tried to depict what she thought was the real Joseph Smith. She was the first historian to really come up with a historical theory to explain Smith's behavior in a way that incorporated most of the known data about Smith with only a small "outlying" sector. Compare that with the pre-Brodie Joseph Smith, which was either a saintly caricature of a man who could do no wrong, and everything embarrassing about him was "outlying", or a caricature of a petty lecherous con-artist, and everything noble or altruistic about him was similarly "outlying". By comparison, Brodie's Smith was the first honest attempt at fitting all the known data about Smith into a coherent whole as a real human being. Brodie's work wasn't perfect, but for a generation it was the preeminent Joseph Smith biography. And a lot of Brodie's failings had to do with the fact that it was written (and revised in 1971) without the benefit of some later research, which Bushman was able to take advantage of. COGDEN 23:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that part of the reason Bushman and Brodie are so extensively cited is because John Foxe appears to have done much of the work of referencing the article, and he finds them to be the most reliable (and most of us agree that they are). If valid, useful references from Nibley, the Tanners, or any other decent source are provided, I can hardly imagine that they would be removed. Just because an author exhibits a strong opinion does not necessarily mean that the author's factual statements are unreliable. It would be good to supplement Bushman and Brodie with further points of reference. Wikipedia's articles should be based on a variety of sources, not just two good ones. I say open the door to biased writings, and use them cautiously. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 05:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Foxe, or anyone else, is saying not to use other sources, but you will find that the going very difficult when all "sources" are used. There is such a wide variation of quality among the spectrum. If you find something you like, add it and see what happens. --^StormRider 05:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This article is a very broad overview of Joseph Smith, and there isn't much opportunity to use highly opinionated sources, simply because there isn't space to fully explore all the nuanced apologetic and secular views on every topic. Whenever there is a broad range of views on a given aspect of Smith's life, the most useful sources are those, like Bushman, that synthesize the whole of scholarship within the field. There is still a lot of opportunity to use other more specialized sources, as well, particularly if those specialized sources synthesize scholarship in that narrow area of Smith's life. COGDEN 18:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Using History of the Church

The primary concern mentioned by the anonymous user was "the narrow scope of referenced researchers", and I quite agree. We have reached the point where most everything in the article is referenced, but virtually all references point to Brodie or Bushman. We should look into backing up those referenced statements with more references from varied sources, rather than try to insert new material. If you look at the first 20 or so sources cited, they are varied. Then they turn into Bushman/Brodie for the rest of the article. History of the Church might be a good source to strengthen our reference pool. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 19:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

History of the Church is sometimes the best primary source--which we need for things like quotations and original statements by Smith, but cannot replace good secondary sources that reflect the current breadth of academic scholarship. We might cite HC for what Smith said, and then cite the secondary sources for what he meant. COGDEN 21:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to put in a suggestion for a few other prominent secondary sources we could use. One of them is Dan Vogel's Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (2004). It only covers up to 1831, but it cover's Smith's life during that period very comprehensively. Vogel's purely naturalistic take on Smith is also considered a prominent one in the field. Also, where we need good, broad overview statements reflecting the most prominent academic view, we might want to cite Jan Shipps, Mormonism: the Story of a New Religious Tradition--which doesn't cover Smith deeply, but to the extent it does cover Smith, it is well respected by both Mormon and secular academics. Because Shipps' work has a limited preview by Google, we can sometimes pick up good citations to that work by searching Google Books. Not so, unfortunately, for Vogel. Other useful works in that vein might include John Brook'e The Refiner's Fire and Harold Bloom's The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation. If we need further prominent works on the apologetic side, we can cite D. Michael Quinn to some extent. He hasn't written a Smith biography per se, but two of his specialized works relating to Smith are well-regarded by academia.COGDEN 23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

References

The references appear to be in two separate alphabetical groups (at least they are using IE). Also, there are a number of notes referring to Ostlings but there is no book in the reference section for those notes. Those that edit this article more regularly may want to review. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the Ostling reference. As for the two separate alphabetical groups, I'm surprised only that there aren't more technical problems considering the volatility of this article.--John Foxe (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The first section is a list of specific references and notes, in the order that they are used in the article. The second section is an alphabetically ordered list of sources used in the first section, so that the entirety of the source information need not be explicitly stated every time the source is used in the first section. It's like WP:Parenthetical referencing, but using another section for references/notes instead of displaying them inline. I feel that this is a very appropriate way to reference the article. Someday, we should clean up the references in the first section so that they all link to the second section, as many of them do already. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 23:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my comment was about the sources section. The sources are in two alphabetical lists (you'll notice it goes from Smith to Clark.) Alanraywiki (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It looks like the problem is that we are using multiple columns with the {{refbegin}} template, which doesn't work quite right with IE. (See Template:Refbegin/doc#Browser_support). I also noticed a strange display of the links in references when using Google Chrome, which is apparently caused by a related issue. Now the question arises...what do we do about it? Should we switch to one column? Explicitly endorse Firefox? ;) The list of sources was not entirely alphabetized, I will be working on that now. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 01:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: the template actually renders properly in any browser, but the reason for two alphabetical lists is because apparently someone tried to make the two-column display appear in alphabetical order, left to right and then top to bottom. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 01:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I didn't pick up on that setup. Alanraywiki (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of citation abuse in this article

After browsing the web, it has came to my attention that a professional latter day saint apologetic research organisation has been monitoring this and several other latter day saint related wikipedia articles, and on their site they have made their own review of this and others assessing the content paragraph by paragraph, and citation by citation.

Now upon fairly analysing this article, which can be found section by section at the links below. They have made several valid and carefully researched accusations of citation abuse by the editor "John Foxe" and a couple of others, and to prove this they have cited wikipedia policy in their work and shown with specific examples how the policy has been violated in the various sections of the article. It is not deliberately looking to find fault in wikipedia may I add, as it accepts the parts of the article which are correct via wikipedia policy.

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

I believe throughly that this could form a good platform on keeping the article in check from Anti-LDS intended editors deliberately tainting the article to their own merits. However, it is also worth noting that the same website is accusing the editor "John Foxe" of deliberately intended spin control in order to make the article appear as negative as possible. This is proven if you at the links which show his abuse of in the article citations. The website also made the following quote on him. I believe that this is vital to be realised, and discussed. The same website also accuses him of citation abuse on a huge number of other LDS articles, I will give the examples on the specific talk pages over time.

In the case of certain LDS articles owned by the editor who uses the pseudonym John "Foxe," he has taken upon himself the task of bringing certain LDS Wikipedia article in line with his definition of "truth." His philosophy is that once an article has been "correctly" written, that it simply needs to be maintained against those who would attempt to heavily modify it in any manner. Following this approach, he has worked his way through a number of articles and worked hard to keep them stable...as long as that stability reflects his desired spin. This allows FAIR to analyze these articles with a high degree of assurance that they will remain close to the form that they are in at the time they are reviewed.

— FAIR Wiki, Quote

Routerone (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness, I was thinking I was the one in the closet here. I knew something was wrong with this article when I first read it, but I had literally found such a wall around this article I had given up (see previous post). The argument has been made by Foxe before that the reason Brodie and Bushman are so heavily referenced is because that's how encyclopedias do things. But it seems to me if you are trying to act like an encyclopedia you tone down on the inflammatory issues, especially the ones which are speculative. If I had read an article in any formal Encyclopedia with such negative spin I would be shocked. I am now waiting for Foxe to answer the following;

1. What was and is your personal POV on Joseph Smith? 2. While you seem fully immersed in the full range of Anti-Mormon writings, which of Joseph Smith's major writings have you read completely and what is your view on them? The Book of Mormon (531 pages)? Doctrine and Covenants (under 300 pages)? The Joseph Smith Papers (literal photostats directly from Joseph's own writings)? 3. Despite his POV, what evidences do you have that Nibley is unreliable as a critic of Brodie? 4. Why are LDS writers dismissed based on their being English Majors or Lawyers? 5. Why have contributors like yourself allowed such a negative and insensitive tone around a man who is still held in high regard by millions and millions of people; comparing Encyclopedia opening statements on Smith I find;

(Wikipedia) "...financial collapse, and conflict with disaffected members encouraged him to gather the church to the Latter Day Saint settlement in Missouri. There, tensions between Mormons and non-Mormons escalated into the 1838 Mormon War. Smith and his people then settled in Nauvoo, Illinois where they began building a second temple. After being accused of practicing polygamy and of aspiring to create a theocracy, Smith, as mayor of Nauvoo and with the support of the city council, directed the suppression of a local newspaper that had published accusations against him, leading to his assassination by a mob." Within the first two paragraphs we have managed to jam in Church dissension, polygamy, poor economic management, war, religious aspiration (does Wikipedia accuse Luther of "Aspiring to create a theocracy?")and even media control (no mention of the papers actions which led to these events).

Then consider the Britannica(extracted December 5, 2009 from, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/549791/Joseph-Smith)second paragraph (the first paragraph is arguably even more respectful);

(Britannica) "Religious differences within the family and over religious revivals in the Palmyra area left Smith perplexed about where to find a church. When he was 14, he prayed for help, and, according to his own account, God and Jesus Christ appeared to him. In answer to his question about which was the right church, they told him that all the churches were wrong. Although a local minister to whom he related the vision dismissed it as a delusion, Smith continued to believe in its authenticity. In 1823 he received another revelation: while praying for forgiveness, he later reported, an angel calling himself Moroni appeared in his bedroom and told him about a set of golden plates containing a record of the ancient inhabitants of America. Smith found the plates buried in a stone box not far from his father’s farm. Four years later, the angel permitted him to remove the plates and instructed him to translate the characters engraved on their surfaces with the aid of special stones called “interpreters.” Smith insisted that he did not compose the book but merely “translated” it under divine guidance. Completing the work in less than 90 days, he published it in March 1830 as a 588-page volume called the Book of Mormon."

Here Britannica does a very fair job of recording Smith's own History of his events. No preaching, no insensitivity, no fringe issues and no apparent spin for or against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been aware of FAIR's "shadow" criticism of Wikipedia for several weeks, and I think it's unfortunate that they would criticize on their own site without bothering to try to improve Wikipedia. They obviously think that this Wikipedia article is important, or they wouldn't be shadow-criticizing it. It takes about twice the effort to criticize it on the FAIR site as it does to just make edits here. Besides, their criticism quickly goes out of date, and even now is pretty much obsolete, as the article has moved on. I say, if they are serious about improving Wikipedia, let them bring their concerns to Wikipedia.

I also take issue with pointing fingers at specific long-term editors and questioning their motives. It's also a little disingenuous for FAIR to be complaining about John Foxe's alleged affiliation with a certain evangelical university. How many FAIR people are affiliated with BYU? All of us have biases and preconceptions, and for FAIR (the "A" in its name standing for "apologetic") to be complaining about biases is crazy. This Wikipedia article should be neither anti-Mormon nor apologetic, and as a whole it isn't. As a whole, Foxe's edits are not really much different from what is found in Bushman's RSR, which is an apologetic work. I think the problem is that FAIR has an issue with New Mormon History and would rather see this article become a hagiography than a mainstream historical article.

This article needs to follow WP:UNDUE, which essentially says that views and material need to be given roughly the same prominence as the prominence given them by mainstream academics in the field. Hugh Nibley, I'm afraid, has never been considered a prominent mainstream expert in the field of Joseph Smith's history. Bushman and Brodie, on the other hand (and a few others like Shipps, Quinn, Vogel, Brooke, and Bloom), are the accepted mainstream authors in this field. COGDEN 19:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input COgden, but the point still stands that both Britannica and Wikipedia source Bushman and Brodie as major sources yet arrive at completely different tones for their article on Joseph Smith. Is it Britannica that is biased? How else do you explain this without considering bias or data manipulation. Additionally, the FAIR contributors identify their POV clearly by their affiliation. The only way I found Foxe's background was reading through other articles he has posted. I find that at best disingenuous. I do not intend do discredit Foxe's efforts, his passion, or even his integrity. And I have no problem with fair and balanced contributors of any faith presenting article support. I merely point out his POV seems to be under-presented, the article is atypically harsh in its approach to Smith, and LDS POV (Bushman excepted, but even then it seems his references to shortcomings seem to be over-represented considering the whole of his writings) is too readily dismissed. Checking out Brittanica I think you would agree this is by far the most negative and critical in focus and tenor.

I am new to this process, but is there not a jury process for investigating the fairness of this article given its discrepancy with the tone of parallel encyclopedic articles. It seems to me the problems with the article are not merely in the details, but in the very framework and structure of the article and in a hopefully coincidental bias (is it possible us Mormons are too busy at Church meetings, serving missions, and raising larger families to be active in balancing out this article, humour intended). Canadiandy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Britannica article is indeed more simplistic than this one. For instance, Britannica asserts that Smith's First Vision occurred when he was 14 and that he reported it to a minister, although the only evidence for those two statements is Smith's own testimony, in several differing versions, given decades later. Perhaps Britannica's weakness is a matter of space. Frankly, because of its comparative completeness, I believe this article stacks up well even against the Joseph Smith article in American National Biography.

That one never-been-a-Mormon might single-handedly craft and maintain such an article so important to the LDS Church is an absurd charge and easily disproved by checking the article history. What stability this article has maintained during the past year is attributable to having multiple editors pitching in from all sides. (Canadiandy, it's easy to get a Wikipedia account; at least you could sign your posts at the end by typing four tildes.)--John Foxe (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

John, I'm still not getting a response as to your POV on Joseph Smith. And actually the possibility that one contributor in tandem with only one or two like-minded individuals could direct the development of an article is not at all absurd. One of the two main criticisms with Wikipedia is its reliability based on the impact of Group Dynamics on its articles. As well Wikipedia states that "...neutral point of view (NPOV) [i]s one of its non-negotiable principles. However it acknowledges that such concept has limitations - its policy indeed states that articles should be "as far as possible" written without bias." See as a commenter (not a contributor as I have not contributed anything to the text of the article) who is LDS I feel to excuse myself from contributing based on my religious respect for Joseph Smith. I get that and see it as proper. At the same time, that does not mean I am going to sit on the sidelines and watch indivivuals who may have a negative POV towards Joseph Smith dictate his history unfairly. So please, in the name of fairness to Wikipedia, its contributors, and its trusting readers, what is your personal POV on Joseph Smith? I've been using 4 square brackets thinking they were tildes, hope it works this time199.60.41.15 (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

I've provided my POV above: I'm not, nor have I ever been, a Mormon. Nevertheless, I try to be as accurate in my editing as I can be. I've crafted a number of biographical articles, including Frank Sandford, Bob Jones, Sr., and Léon Boëllmann, and I try to write as carefully and objectively about Mormon figures as I do about anyone else. My personal philosophy about Wikipedia articles is that the most accurate ones are usually also the best written, and I see my chief contribution as the ability to improve grammar and syntax in the interest of clarity.

If the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research believed that there was a cabal of "like-minded individuals" holding this article hostage, why did they name just me? And if they believed it to be just me, how can their position be maintained in the face of the article history?

At least you've learned a new vocabulary word, "tilde," through this exchange :)--John Foxe (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response John. I figured I was grown up when I learned 'ampersand,' thanks for 'tilde.' I think it's the first time I've used that thing. I was more interested in your POV towards Joseph Smith not Mormonism. There are many out there who figure he was a true Prophet of God. Some who are fascinated or at least interested by his historical accomplishments and character. And then there are those who believe him a liar, a heretic, and a con-man. Of course there are all variations in between those. But my concern is that you may be coming at this with a previously negative or unfairly biased POV towards Joseph Smith. I do not take fault with you for that even if you think the greatest evil of Joseph Smith. I just think it important that we know your work here is based on neutrality and not merely an effort towards neutrality. I think of it as jury duty. A fair jury process will require removal of any who come in with bias or conflict of interest and then the expectation that those remaining will strive to operate without bias throughout the proceedings of a case.

Also, I am not a member of FAIR. Except for this article I don't dabble in big religious discussions (more interested in studying and practicing my religion that deconstructing it). But I suspect they are singling you out (fairly or unfairly) because you seem to be the senior contributor at the time and at present the article remains heavily slanted. No, I don't think you made it that way (I have reviewed the history and it looks more like you inherited the problem) I just think they might see you as responsible or at least doing nothing about it. So the fault is more likely one of omission and not comission. I don't envy the work it would take, but it seems you are faced with either radically revising the scope, sequence and tenor of the article to be a little more sensitive to family and followers of Joseph Smith, or stepping aside so some new 'jury members' can have a less polarized go at it. I wish you courage and inspiration in the choices ahead.

Seriously, I did not take on contributing to these discussions out of anger or some kind of axe to grind. I was just so shocked initially by the imbalance of what I read when I visited this page that I felt I had to offer input. PBS was balanced, Britannica was balanced, but from my POV, anyone who thinks this is balanced has gone to a few too many "Secrets of Moronism Revealed" seminars at their local church.

199.60.41.15 (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

Me again (Canadiandy). Thanks for referencing FAIR's criticism of your contributions. I hadn't read them before and they were quite informative about what may be happening here. One thing I actually am enlightened by is what I have identified as negative and unfair treatment of Joseph Smith here. I know that sounds weird but let me explain how it works. See, Brigham Young once said, "Every time you kick "Mormonism" you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs." I saw a perfect example of this during my own missionary service. In the area I was assigned some other religion delivered a book to every doorstep in the community called, "God's Word, Final, Infallible, and Forever" which was in reality a disguised anti-Mormon tract, despite the misleading title the majority of the book merely set forth to discredit Joseph Smith and Mormonism. Well in the end we had more people investigate and join the Church in that area than ever before. See, when people would read through those criticisms they wouldn't coincide with their experience with Mormons and the Church. So they looked further, and that investigation led them to find out the truth about Joseph from respectful and more reliable sources. So yeah, in some ways I hope this stays slanted. I just hope the links at the very bottom (the truth in fine print) stay active while it is because people are going to be looking. 99.199.147.225 (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

I think the shock that your felt when reading this page is the same shock that any Mormon feels when first reading any non-apologetic history of Joseph Smith. Most Mormons don't have any exposure to Mormon history except for the materials provided by the LDS Church. The church's portrayal of Smith is a valid one for church purposes, where the goal is to promote faith. When you go to church, you expect to have your faith reinforced. But when you go to Wikipedia or any neutral academic-oriented source, you expect to find Joseph Smith portrayed as a real person from a neutral secular perspective--the same unflinching perspective that you would expect to see in an article about any other enigmatic, controversial 19th century figures like John Brown, Geronimo, or Napoleon. Bushman's RSR is the first comprehensive apologetic Mormon biography of Smith to approach that neutral perspective, and thus to be taken seriously by the academic community. Speaking as a Mormon, I think that's fantastic, but I would suspect that any Mormon who is shocked upon reading this Wikipedia article would similarly be shocked to read RSR. COGDEN 08:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no COgden. My shock had nothing to do with seeing some of the criticisms of Joseph Smith that exist in the academic world (and I resent the suggestion that I have received a shielded perspective based on my Church upbringing, if this is your attitude I would question your Church experience. On Joseph Smith I've pretty much heard it all. Infact, this article is exactly what I would expect to see from a typical anti-Mormon website which was trying to appear open-minded (heavy focus on shock value issues such as polygamy, political involvement, military early on, followed by some respectful links placed conveniently way at the bottom). My shock is that this article has evolved into a very unfairly organized piece. By presenting a barrage of controversial and inflammatory themes in the opening two paragraphs any uninformed reader would quickly dismiss Joseph Smith and move on. That, I feel, is unfair and poor journalism. Remember Bushman was not writing for the masses, he was writing for those already familiar with Joseph Smith. Thus Britannica can write an article with the same sources and come across as ten times more sensitive than this article. And yes, with respect, I think it's time we 'dismissed the jury.' This one seems hung. Here is my theory as to how we got here. Generally speaking there are two types of people who research Joseph Smith (as evidenced in Brodie/Bushman). There are those who hate him, and those who love him. Now on Wikipedia, those who love him are quickly dismissed or are respectfully cautious in posting based on their POV. But those with a negative POV towards Joseph Smith are pretty much all that is left, and they then have free rein to guide the Wikipedia agenda. Again, this is a classic example of the flaw Wikipedia has w/ Group Dynamics. My solution would be to throw it all out, and scour the forest for a few truly neutral contributors (not just people trying to be neutral) and let them try it again. I suspect what they would come up with would look an awful lot more like Brittanica, and an awful lot less like "God's Word, Final, Infallible, and Forever.". 99.199.147.225 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

John Foxe are you accepting compensation from your evangelical organization for your mormon wikipedia adventures? Or perhaps there is there more than one human behind that wikipedia username of yours? Those are my best guesses as to why and how you are so active on this and other mormon wikipedia articles. Please explain in detail your POV and why you care so much. Others have freely admitted their POV. When pressed recently you said you were trying to be "accurate"; accurate to what? and why are you trying? Please help us understand the person (people?) behind the wikipedia username John Foxe? Proudneutralmormon (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

First, I reverted your edit, not because I disagree with it but because that sort of thing belongs in the article on the Church not in a biography of Joseph Smith.

More importantly, I receive no compensation from any person, group, or church to edit this article or any other. I edit at Wikipedia because I think it's fun and because I can make a contribution. There is no one else behind my user name, and I'm such an idiosyncratic writer that I bet computer software could pick up the singularity of my style.--John Foxe (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

COGDEN I'd like to make it clear that it is not the references themselves or the authors of those sources which is the problem in relation to this page. As the links show and I have pointed out, the problem is the deliberately biast, negative and opinonated interpretation of the sources as FAIR has shown. The sources are not an issue, but the way they are being used. FAIR shows that on this and several other articles Foxe is acting upon himself to create unsupported conclusions and negative interpretations from the data of the sources and then defending his work self righteously when somebody changes it. This article and several others are indeed not neutral, and as FAIR has supported with more than enough evidence, the pages are indeed deliberately manipulated spin control attempts in order to dissaprove of the LDS church as much as possible and minimize anything supportive of it. Routerone (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked Wiki Dashboard for this article and discovered that I've made only 7.5% of the edits.--John Foxe (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

John, I'm still waiting for your POV on Joseph Smith. 99.199.147.225 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

I'm not sure what more I can say besides the fact that I am not now, nor ever have been, a Mormon. Otherwise, I demonstrate the same POV here as I do in my biographies of Fawn Brodie, Frank Sandford, Bob Jones, Sr., and Léon Boëllmann: a simple desire to tell a life as accurately as possible based on the best possible source material. You're more than welcome to join the conversation here. My guess is that a majority of folks who edit at this article are church members.--John Foxe (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

John, it is likely you are not now, nor have ever been a member of the Communist Party either. Your religion, I feel, has nothing to do with this. But still the question remains, not whether you are a Mormon or not, but what was your POV (i.e. respect, disrespect, hatred, skepticism, reverence, mere scholastic interest, naivety, desire to discredit, fascination) regarding Smith when you began your contributions? I am assuming good faith, but I am also not getting direct answers to simple questions. 99.199.147.225 (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

Canadiandy and ProudneutralMormon, John Foxe's point of view is totally irrelevant. An important principle of Wiki etiquette is to assume good faith. I'm a Mormon who believes that Smith was a prophet, and I've been editing with John Foxe for years, agreeing with him far more often than I have disagreed. His POV or motivation, or that of any other editor here, is 100% irrelevant. All that matters is whether the tone and content of this article is neutral, judged by neutral secular academic standards.

I disagree that this article as a whole is anti-Mormon. If it were, I'd be the first one seeking to change it. Joseph Smith once said, "Truth is Mormonism", so no honest portrayal of Smith could be anti-Mormon, even if some Mormons are uncomfortable with the material. Because we are constrained by the mainstream sources, there are certain topics about Smith's life that just have to be included, and featured prominently. For example, how could we possibly have an academically-neutral Joseph Smith that doesn't emphasize the 1838 collapse of the church in Kirtland. It was one of the most significant events in his life. His oldest and closest advisors deserted him, and most of the rest lost confidence him for a while, and the church as a whole nearly fell apart. All the mainstream academics know this was one of the turning points in Smith's life, including Bushman. Likewise, how could a neutral Joseph Smith article fail to prominently cover Smith's early profession as a treasure-seer? All the mainstream academics know that this early talent touched and influence all of his early life, and was the main source of Smith's earliest persecution. And what about Smith's polygamy and theocratic rule in Nauvoo? It was these developments, more than anything, that led to his death. If anyone disagrees with the above, then their disagreement is really with the sources, not with John Foxe. Let's start focusing on the content and the sources, rather than on the credentials or perspectives of individual editors. COGDEN 23:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

COgden. You are comfortable identifying your Church membership and so I hope you take no offense at this. But as you have broached the subject I feel it only acceptable to ask you whether you consider yourself what might be termed an 'orthodox' Mormon? While you claim membership your viewpoints here do not seem to reflect common Church member attitudes or sensitivities. Of course most members recognize the challenges Joseph faced in Kirtland and Nauvoo. But from my experience the majority of Mormons would view the key elements in Joseph's life and development as his strong Christian upbringing, the love of his family, his spiritual sensitivities, the Vision he had of God and Jesus Christ, his incredibly close bond with his brother, Hyrum, his courage, the tutelage he received from heavenly messengers including Moroni and John the Baptist, his innate integrity, his compassion, and his strong work ethic. How could you have missed those? Like Sarah Palin, it looks like you've, "Gone Rogue." Please don't get me wrong, I am not questioning your devotion or religious conviction, or even you understanding of Church History. But for others reading on this discussion page I feel it important to point out that your statements here clearly do not reflect a common consensus of Church members. So feel free to identify yourself as a Mormon, just make sure to point out your opinions are not those of the majority of Church members.99.199.147.225 (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

COGDEN I disagree strongly with your statement that the editor's POV "is totally irrelevant." That is my feeling on the matter. Here is a fact - the user John Foxe is closely affiliated with Bob Jones University - Look at his first batches of wikipedia contribs. If anyone reading this doesn't understand why I am bringing up Bob Jones U, then go look up the history of Mormons and Baptists before you continue reading. Now, based on Mr. Foxe's style, him coming from Bob Jones U, Foxe's 498 edits on the J.S. page, more than 100 above second place, I think it's safe to say bias may have crept up on Mr. Foxe of Bob Jones University.

And now lets flip the coin - if we had a scenario where there was a BYU affiliated person, who when asked why they edited Wikipedia answered as Foxe did above: "because I think it's fun and because I can make a contribution", but that same person had hundreds of edits on the Bob Jones wikipedia article, way more than anybody else, well, on those facts alone they wouldn't be invited to sit on a jury. If that person actually wrote in a neutral manner most would be surprised. So if you would call even my fictitious BYU-Bob Jones wikipedia bomber unbiased then I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

OK, so these comments about user bias do have strong bearing on the Joseph Smith page. Because this article is far from neutral, and out of sync with other wikipedia articles on J.S., it needs a lot of discussion and a lot of work. I am not suggesting this page be turned into a LDS missionary site. There are already lots of other official LDS websites available to people. But I would love to see some true neutrality on this page. 98.108.141.145 (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of that logic, if I write a biography of Léon Boëllmann, I must be an organist. But I'm not. And if I edit articles about Mormonism, I must be either a Mormon or a former Mormon. But I'm not.--John Foxe (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be straw man rhetoric. First, I don't know of many flautists who would seek to "reveal the hidden secrets of 'keyboardism.' But that dynamic does exist between differing faiths and so merely asking for a reassurance (which I would gladly accept on good faith) that the senior contributor did not approach this endeavor with anything but a neutral POV on Joseph Smith seems fair. 99.199.147.225 (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

Having my screen personality attacked by the apologetic arm of the LDS Church is in its own way flattering, but COGDEN is right, all that matters is whether the tone and content of this article is neutral according to secular academic standards.

Finally, I am not now, nor ever have been, a Baptist.--John Foxe (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

FAIR is not an "apologetic arm" of the LDS Church. They have no official affiliation whatsoever. The Church doesn't have "apologists." Correction please. For the record, I have never questioned or intended to be insensitive to any religion. The worst I did was comment on the existing dynamics which exist between Evangelicals and Mormons (i.e. Huckabee/Romney). I am sorry if others here have not respected your religious freedoms and beliefs. But if you thought you would come to a religious dialogue about a polarizing figure such as Joseph Smith and didn't expect you would need thick skin that would have been a tad naive. Salomon Rushdie is just coming out of hiding, and the worst I've seen here is someone calling you a Baptist (in my books that's a compliment). So please, an olive branch, and a simple request that you share any preconceptions you came into this editing with so at least I can know I've done what I could to protect the true history about the man many, including me, revere as a great Prophet99.199.147.225 (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

I do indeed have a thick skin (as well as a well-developed sense of humor). The point I was making is that you have made an unwarranted assumption: that anyone who edited at Bob Jones University must be a Baptist editing in support of that institution. I might simply have wanted to create a more accurate article about a controversial religious topic based on the best sources. I believe I have done that there. I believe I have done that here.--John Foxe (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

John, it was not me that suggested you were a Baptist, please correct. In fact I had assumed you were more likely an Evangelical Christian. But would you please correct your claim that FAIR is an "arm" of the LDS Church. It is simply not true.99.199.147.225 (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

My apologies to any baptist or mormon I may have offended with my reference to the historic rivalry between the two groups. I don't claim to know much about Bob Jones University, just enough to know that I wouldn't expect a wikipedia editor closely associated with Bob Jones U to be neutral on a Joseph Smith article in any way. I think I have said enough about this for now, and anyone who cares to read this thread is going to make their own judgement anyway. 98.108.141.145 (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I wouldn't expect any Wikipedia editor closely associated with the LDS Church to have a neutral perspective on Joseph Smith either—but then sometimes I get surprised. (As for lack of knowledge about BJU, you could always look through the Wikipedia article in which my hand is certainly evident. Not only would it be educational, you might also find yourself wondering if such an article could have been created by a proxy for the public relations department, which is the implication of FAIR's attack on me.)--John Foxe (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, FAIR's statements about John Foxe don't seem very fair. Don't take it personally, Foxe, It seems that FAIR just needed a non-mormon poster boy to illustrate that Wikipedia is not written exclusively by apologists. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 02:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The question in my mind now is "...so what?" Canadiandy, and whoever else, if you have specific changes, based on the FAIR analysis of this article, that you want to suggest, by all means please do so. I highly recommend making a new section on the talk page for each individual point you wish to change, because discussions (like this one) often turn into long, meaningless blobs of text. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 02:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

New "Distinctive views and teachings" section

Just starting some discussion about the proposed new section of the article. I like the idea and look forward to seeing it fleshed out a bit more. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 02:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah. Unless it will be used as a way to pull all the inflammatory concepts out and place them together in one at least three paragraphs down (I don't disagree with stating these opinions and views, just that their juxtaposition at the very beginning is poor form from a site which prides itself on neutrality).99.199.147.225 (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

Last post. Sorry if I got a bit snippy here. Still quite disappointed at the slant, but that may just be the nature of the beast. Peace. 99.199.147.225 (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

These sections are in the very early stages--kind of a brainstorming stage thus far, and not many citations--so I don't think we need to worry too much yet about the best way to present the material. I think our main concern right now should be to figure out what content needs to be included. Once we know what the material is, we can finesse it. COGDEN 20:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

While not an end-all neutral source, the LDS manual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith may prove useful for this section. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to be very cautious about using that source. It is an LDS religious manual, and therefore its purpose is quite a bit different than an academic summary of Smith's teachings, which would tend to emphasize different things. Also, to the extent that Smith's teachings are the same as those of some faction of mainstream Christianity, they are not really notable or "distinctive", and we shouldn't waste much space on them in this summary article. COGDEN 00:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Should updated, referenced 2008 statistics be deleted?

Hello, according to my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines, referenced material should not be deleted. Earlier today I added updated statistics showing the number of followers of Joseph Smith has risen above 13 million. The 13 million is based on 2008 stats. One editor, use John Foxe decided to delete the reference and the additions claiming they don't belong here. Following the guidelines of collaboration and consensus, I am starting this new discussion section to find out if the various individuals interested want to weigh in on this question.

Considering the edits were referenced with newer stats than were already there, correct me if I am wrong, they should stand unless we have a very strong consensus to stick with the old. So I have undone Mr. Foxe's premature undoing of my addition until we have a consensus. After we have a consensus, if the community agrees with Mr. Foxe, then I suppose I will take the numbers down.

The reason the numbers matter is because the LDS church is Joseph's legacy. If J.S. had only 20,000 modern-day followers, then he would have a much different place in history. 98.108.141.145 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my fault. I was misled by the way the new information looked on my screen. I've just cleaned up the note format a bit. I apologize.--John Foxe (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sums up how you are hell bent on controlling that article, doesn't it? Routerone (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

John Foxe, thank you for understanding. And also thank you for showing me how to make citations more readable. 98.108.141.145 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The 13 million figure is misleading. That number represents the number of people on the rolls of the LDS Church. However, only about half of these people are still Mormons. The rest are not affiliated with the church, and there is no evidence that these non-Mormons still (or ever truly did) consider themselves part of Smith's legacy. If we include a number, it ought to be revised downward. COGDEN 22:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Man, I appreciate your calling yourself a Mormon, but your views here sure aren't reflective of the majority of Mormons I know. A member with serious experience or understandings of Church policy relative to membership will know the following; 1. Membership is only recorded for a living individual who has, of their own free will, been baptized and then confirmed a member. The only exception to this is for children of baptized parents until the age of accountability (9). So it is mighty hard for a person to accidentally become a Mormon. Now whether they are active in Church attendance is another issue, but here the Church does not make the decision for the individual (that is a matter of free agency). 2. While records of children whose parents are members are kept they are not considered members after the age of 9 unless baptized and confirmed. 3. There are many in the world who have never been baptized (for legal, physical, or family reasons) yet might still consider themselves "members" or followers of the Church. So the argument of estimating downward is highly questionable. 4. Anyone who does not wish to remain a member of the Church needs only to follow a few simple steps to have their membership removed (a process consistent with many organizations and in compliance with all State laws). So, of those 13 000 000, you would be hard pressed to find a handful of 'accidental members.' How frequently they attend is merely speculative and questionable.

Perhaps it should be written, While Mormon leaders claim 13 000 000 members it is estimated by someone pulling numbers ranging from 1 to 12 999 999 out of a hat that 3 784 433 of them failed to attend Church last Sunday and so are excluded from consideration by Wikipedia contributors. In addition, 498 743 estimated children are merely attending because their Mommies made them so they are likewise removed from educated membership estimates. As to the estimated number who did not attend because of flat tires we can only speculate. But after Wikipedia review the number now stands at 17, and one of them is a declared Communist. man, sorry COgden, but you're really off the mark this time. 99.199.147.225 (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

I reverted the text to it's original form ("millions of adherents") but kept the citation. The specific number isn't as important as its magnitude for this article, since the focus should be Joseph Smith, Jr. himself. The specificity of the new reference is, I feel, excessively granular. Can some of it be summarized or removed? I'll be working on that, please review my work. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 00:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I still see a very good reason why the 13 million worldwide figure should be used. Naturally, one of the first questions a person will have when learning about a religious figure is how many followers? Before my edit today this article said a vague "millions" could be interpreted by a reader as anywhere from 2 million to 999 million. A reader would have had to search elsewhere to find out that simple 13,000,000 answer that occupies only 10 characters of text. We do have the sources mentioned in the 2nd note. A careful read of the notes shows that the 2003 figures put out by the church were considered accurate and verified by neutral third parties. If we wanted to accept COGDENS allegation that the 2008 rolls are inflated - well, COGDEN or somebody should provide a reputable neutral source for 2008, of similar quality to the 2003 source saying so.

OK, the first reference at www.gc.cuny.edu was last updated in 2001. Already posted on this article are 2003 statistics, published two years after the gc.cuny.edu study which are cross-validated based on various sources. Please go through and read the 2003 statistics that have already been referenced for this article carefully. The SL Tribune article appears to be referencing many different sources, including the 2001 gc.cuny.edu study. I can't tell by looking at the SL Tribune website when the article was first published or where they got all the stats from. Unfortunately, the trib doesn't have any links to the original sources to say for sure where they pulled the numbers.

So, Unless I missed something, the two links provided do not refute the 2003 references which were previously included in this article. Due to the 7 year gap I also fail to see how the two links provided by COGDEN can be considered as an alternate perspective on the LDS Church 2008 statistics.

I just want to remember why we are discussing the statistics, this article ought to give the most accurate estimate possible of the number of followers of J.S. I already accepted Mr. Foxe's suggestion to use the word "claims" with the 13 million. I am still open to going back to the way it was before, with a generic "millions" instead of the more professional [13 million claimed], but I would want to see some really good reasons why, a strong consensus from several interested editors of this article, and possibly some objective statistical analysis by a government or sociological research organization. Until then, the 13,000,000 is sourced, and the neutral keyword "claimed" is included. 98.108.141.145 (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line, having the figure of 13 million backed by a good reference, as opposed to a vague magnitude estimate of "millions" is factual encyclopedia style.

And, finally, please do not delete the material, which is sourced, until there is a strong consensus in this section first. I think the figures should stand on the site and allow more people to post their opinion on the matter in this section. Right now I read it as me, for keeping the 13 million, and 2 users COGEN and B Fizz opposed. I don't think that's enough consensus to delete the factual, sourced material. 98.108.141.145 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• The IP's point is quite good: it's not an overwhelming amount of text (especially since it's not in the introduction), and the way it's worded ("self-reported") doesn't say that Salt Lake City's numbers are definitely correct or definitely inflated. Moreover, who are we to say that the church is wrong to consider non-practising members as members? If it cares to retain them on the rolls, they're members; we're not making pronouncements that they're "faithful members" or "dutiful members". Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My point was that the "13 million" figure is misleading the way it is used in the article. The number certainly has its own logic within Mormonism, because according to LDS theology, someone is Mormon until they are excommunicated. However, that does not mean that these people are still part of Smith's legacy. About half of the 13 million do not consider themselves to be Mormon. If we need references for that fact, see this (for U.S.) and this worldwide. There are other references, but I don't think anybody really much dispute that half of people on the rolls of the LDS Church no longer consider themselves Mormon. I don't think that a precise number here is necessary. Whether it is 6 million or 13 million, Joseph Smith is a leader of an important world religion. COGDEN 02:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The article cited by COGDEN suggests doubt that the church is growing worldwide. This issue could better be discussed in the main article about the LDS Church rather than here, a biography of Joseph Smith. But I'll let others, more knowledgeable about such things, weigh in on this one.--John Foxe (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, the first reference from COGDEN at www.gc.cuny.edu was last updated in 2001. Already posted on this article are 2003 statistics, published two years after the gc.cuny.edu study which are cross-validated based on various sources. Please go through and read the 2003 statistics that have already been referenced for this article carefully. The SL Tribune article appears to be referencing many different sources, including the 2001 gc.cuny.edu study. I can't tell by looking at the SL Tribune website when the article was first published or where they got all the stats from. Unfortunately, the trib doesn't have any links to the original sources to say for sure where they pulled the numbers.

So, Unless I missed something, the two links provided do not refute the 2003 references which were previously included in this article. Due to the 7 year gap I also fail to see how the two links provided by COGDEN can be considered as an alternate perspective on the LDS Church 2008 statistics.

I just want to remember why we are discussing the statistics, this article ought to give the most accurate estimate possible of the number of followers of J.S. I already accepted Mr. Foxe's suggestion to use the word "claims" with the 13 million. I am still open to going back to the way it was before, with a generic "millions" instead of the more professional [13 million claimed], but I would want to see some really good reasons why, a strong consensus from several interested editors of this article, and possibly some objective statistical analysis by a government or sociological research organization. Until then, the 13,000,000 is sourced, and the neutral keyword "claimed" is included. 98.108.141.145 (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The LDS Church's $13 million figure is not a claim that every one of those 13 million people on the LDS Church rolls still considers themselves Mormon. If that's not what even the LDS Church is claiming, then why should we cite it in a way that implies that. Actually, I think we can be pretty sure that the percentage of actual Mormons among that number is somewhere in the very rough neighborhood of 50%. In fact, I'm pretty sure I even remember my old mission president giving me that figure, and I know, at least in the LDS mission where I served, about 50% of new converts leave the church within a year. I don't think that's controversial. It doesn't matter that the above references are out of date. When the studies are made,ed the last sentence in the the numbers were very roughly 50% based on LDS rolls at the time. No reason to think things have changed. I understand that in Latin America, the retention rates are somewhat lower. COGDEN 04:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For those joining midstream, we are debating whether A) The sourced 13 million members claimed number in the second paragraph should be changed to say only "millions" and B) whether the reference to 2008 LDS statistics should be taken down. COGDEN, Do I understand correctly that so far you have provided 1) Hyperlink to research dated to 2001, 2) A SL Tribune article that points back to number 1 with no additional sources. 3) your personal opinions based on your experience in the church?

Have your or anyone else been able to get any updated, quality independent polls, quality government statistics, or sociological research similar to what is found in the very first reference of this article? If the 13 million number needs to be amended, or the 2008 LDS church membership statistics need to be deleted, then high quality, independent research would be very helpful. Providing the most accurate number possible will give excellent perspective to tomorrow's readers of this article.

Finally, neither I nor the church am saying that all 13 million members claimed attend church every Sunday. All we are debating is this statement: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, claims more than 13 million members and is growing worldwide." 98.108.141.145 (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to say that the Church claims that it's growing; but you need neutral sources (for instance, census records or a scholarly study of religious groups) to state it as a fact.--John Foxe (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In terms of objectivity, there is a link to a 2 million figure from the LDS church from 1968 in the 2nd reference of the article. There is also the 13 million figure already referenced for 2008. In between then two of them is a reference on this article which already existed prior to the sentence we are debating. There were multiple 2003 references stating that the LDS figures can be considered accurate. So, if the 2003 batch of stats is inadequate for some reason, please flesh through them and say why. If the reference that the church is growing needs to be tempered somehow, please explain that position in more detail and get a stronger consensus here first, before undoing contributions which are sourced. 12.31.202.5 (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Again for those joining midstream we are debating the merits and weaknesses of the following sourced statement: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, claims more than 13 million members and is growing worldwide." 12.31.202.5 (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The only statistics provided are from the Church. We need neutral statistics, for instance from the census or some scholarly study of religious groups.--John Foxe (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(New indent) So every other article on Wikipedia on a church gets to quote their membership numbers, but this one? For some reason, this one needs to have their numbers reported by a "neutral", "scholarly study". This makes me roll on the floor laughing. COgden used the SLTimes article, which only used membership numbers as reported by other religious groups...duh. If groups can't be trusted none of them can. On the other hand, if we trust them for one, we trust them for all.

None of the reasons offered here are any different than that seen on the Catholic Church article for their membership rolls. The LDS Church, having such a top-down leadership style has the best chance of reporting accurate numbers (I discount and throw-out the fraud charges completely). Few of the other groups (Protestants) know the difference between the left and right hand; there is no mechanism to limit an individual to a single Church. The quote is referenced; that is all that is needed. Quit choking on gnats. --^StormRider 20:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't trust any self-reported statistics from religious groups because of the conflict of interest. We need neutral numbers, especially when it's mooted that half of LDS members in the US are inactive and a larger percentage than that overseas.--John Foxe (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it just as moot for Catholics, Baptists, Assemblies of God, etc? Who is not is a moot point about? It is completely appropriate to say that "the LDS Church reported xyz members in their April 2009 conference". When you find that "neutral" group who can quantify membership numbers for all religious groups, please share it. Please don't say anything having to do with a statistician; they have not been able to call a political race since they started counting.

The short answer is yes. We should have neutral numbers for any sort of church membership, perhaps a scholarly book with estimates. I have no problem with "the LDS Church reported" wording. I just don't want the article to say that the Church has so many members or that it's "growing worldwide," when there's reasonable doubt about those statements. In any case, why is this question being discussed in a biography of Joseph Smith? It's an issue for the article on the LDS Church. Just saying "millions" would avoid the whole can of worms.--John Foxe (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that anybody disputes that the LDS Church is being truthful when it says it has over 13 million people on its rolls, and that this number is increasing. I have no doubt that's true, but that's not the point of the argument here. The point is, that this number is used to imply that Joseph Smith has over 13 million followers, which is simply untrue, given how the LDS Church defines its membership. He has millions of followers, and probably closer to 10 million than to 1 million, but not more than 13 million. I'm also pretty sure that the number of net followers is increasing (meaning that the number of people leaving the church is smaller than the number being added to the rolls), but I haven't seen a source demonstrating that.

Another problem, the article currently cites statistics regarding U.S. membership which do not support, and have nothing to do, with the 13 million figure. The citation is also to a non-reliable source--just some web page--although that web page cites sources that themselves might be reliable. COGDEN 23:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Just saying 'millions' would avoid the whole can of worms." My sentiments precisely, John Foxe. Plus, it just seems to flow more naturally. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 05:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

BFizz, I think you have a really neat idea to break out this debate into topics. I see a lot of room to expand your way of using the topics so I moved the topics up above the summary. Hopefully that's OK. I am back now working on the section summary the way I visualized it. I have this idea of each user occupying a single line in the summary, and then as we come to a consensus we can each edit our own line. So it will show a consensus or not right there, in the same number of lines as there are users. If everyone hates it I'll drop it, I just thought it would be fun. 98.108.141.145 (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. It's so hard to discuss things when we have three or four topics flying around at random. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 01:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of the specific figure "13 million"

• Unnecessary - I feel the use of the specific figure, 13 million, to be unnecessary and sometimes problematic, though not objectionable. If the 13 million figure is used, the word "claimed" should almost inevitably be used with it. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 03:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A few people in this section have also opined that there is no problem including the 13 million figure. For a stylistic comparison of another American religious figure, please check out the Bob Jones Sr. wikipedia Article (it even has some of the same editors as this article) which in the evangelical section lists many more figures than the claimed 13 million sentence I added to this J.S. page. Clearly the authors of the Bob Jones article are trying to give a loud and clear impression of the influence of Bob Jones. I think it is fine for wikipedia articles to attempt to enumerate the following of a religious leader. Do you? 98.108.141.145 (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The numbers in the Bob Jones, Sr. article are ultimately sourced in newspaper accounts, so they're not the product of Jones's church or organization.--John Foxe (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the newspaper tip. I added a newspaper reference from USA Today. I haven't read up on the Bob Jones Sr newspaper references, but liked your idea and it only took a minute to find and post that newspaper reference. which was published 6 months ago and says that the data was obtained via a neutral organization that serves many churches. So can we agree that we now have neutral references showing the LDS church is growing? Proudneutralmormon (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

See the section below for discussion on use of the USA Today article.

• Unnecessary - The precise number of Smith's current followers is not necessary, but if it is included, it should not be used in a way that implies something that the numbers do not support (i.e., that Smith has a legacy of 13.5 million current adherents). Since the 13 million figure comes with lots of baggage, it's overkill to include all that tangential baggage in this article (rather than in the LDS Church article, where it is more germane). COGDEN 06:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So if the numerical volume of followers is unnecessary here, should like figures also be scrubbed from the Bob Jones Sr Article I compared this one too? Ultimately I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but if it's sourced and meets wikipedia guidelines, can you accept it? Proudneutralmormon (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Bob Jones case, newspapers in some cities where Jones held evangelistic campaigns got reporters to count "trail hitters" independently of the campaign staff. Jones grew to dislike the notion of counting souls converted and stopped his staff from keeping a tally. Obviously, modern newspapers don't have an independent method of discovering LDS church membership. They simply rely on handouts from the Church.--John Foxe (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of the USA Today reference

Newspapers pick and choose statistics, often summarizing data and relevant material which would require lengthy discussion. USA Today's format lends itself to this difficulty as they like pithy, easily presented material. I reverted the source because of this tendency, although I suspect the 13 mil is fairly accurate. I would encourage finding the neutral source cited above, verifying that the information quoted was actually as published, and trying to understand how the information was gathered. If the information is based on self reporting by churches, this method is often attacked when used by the Utah based LDS church. I will not revert the source again, however. WBardwin (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The USA Today article cites the "...2009 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, which was released in February and uses church data from 2007..." It acknowledges that the material is self reported by the various faiths and notes that methods of comparison between faiths are not statistically sound as reporting methods vary widely. So ... is this media restatement worth citing when we have other sources for this data? WBardwin (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the USA Today Wikipedia article, "USA Today remains the widest circulated print newspaper in the United States." When is a source ever going to be good enough to support the number? Do any credible sources refute it? The reason I agreed with using the USA article is precisely because it explained how the data was gathered and expounded a bit on that topic. If an interested reader read the statistic, then looked at that reference, that reader would probably find what he was looking for....but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 10:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The distribution and readership of any particular source does not reflect the accuracy of the information reported therein! And I'm not suggesting they are distorting the numbers. But -- this particular USA Today article is at best a tertiary source -- citing information self reported by the Church, tabulated into the 2009 Yearbook, then extracted, used and explained by the USA Today reporter. Why not simply use the primary source: i.e. "In 200(7, 8, 9...), the LDS Church announced the following statistical data..... This data is based on ..............."? To my knowledge, no one else counts us! How could they? People simply refute the way the Church counts, as it includes all members of record rather than active, involved persons or persons attending meetings on a regular basis. We can point out the source -- paper records -- mention the contrast with the way other churches measure their participation, and then move on! But adding tertiary sources quoting secondary sources quoting primary sources? Sorry, just too disconnected for me. WBardwin (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. In truth, all we really need is the source from the church, coupled with "claimed membership". I like including the USA article for the reasons I stated above, but I do not insist on using it, the same way I do not insist on using "millions" instead of "nearly 14 million". ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 07:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of 2008 references

• Shorter footnote - Additional references are almost always a good thing, but, in this article, I find no need to have such a lengthy footnote supporting the 13 million figure. KISS principle ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 03:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

BFIZZ the 2008 footnote is shorter than the 2003 footnote that was already there. Are there any wikipedia guidelines about how long or short a footnote should be? 98.108.141.145 (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just a matter of style. Generally, long overblown footnotes on a completely tangential topic are not considered desirable. COGDEN 19:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that, COgden. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 01:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I repeat my question, forgive my newbieness. COGDEN is the 2003 or the 2008 reference too long? Because when I added the 2008 it was way shorter then the 2003 in it's first draft and many people kindly helped me improve it after I added it. Proudneutralmormon (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think they are both way too long. The purpose of the footnote is to provide a citation to the 13 million figure and the growth claim. If that's what the text is going to be, lets just cite a source (either the LDS Church Statistical Report or maybe the USA Today article) and move on. No further commentary is needed. COGDEN 19:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Short footnote - And the citation, if any, needs to be to a reliable source. COGDEN 06:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

COGDEN the church posts its figures every year, now on the internet. Does that count for reliability? 98.108.141.145 (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what it's used for. It is a reliable source for what the LDS Church claims the membership is, but probably not a reliable source for what the church membership actually is, because this number is not as far as I know subject to peer-review or independent verification. Not that I dispute that number--it's just that it probably isn't sufficiently verifiable under Wikipedia guidelines. Nobody for sure knows the church's methodology (I think I know roughly what it is, based on church policy, but that's just guessing), and no independent source is able to look over the raw data. COGDEN 18:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I read the guidelines. I think the new USa Today reference adequately adresses your concern. Does it? Proudneutralmormon (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it was deleted from the article, but if we just included a citation to this USA Today article, and no further extraneous commentary like we currently have, then that's probably okay. If the article text is about what the LDS Church is claiming, then all we need is a source for the church's 13 million figure and a source where the church's figures indicate growth--we could probably even just the official church statistical report that they put out at General Conference. The ideal source, however, would be something peer-reviewed that provided an estimate a sum total of membership in all LDS movement faiths, and then we could state something more definite. Probably doesn't exist, though. I do think it's interesting that the USA Today source says that the LDS Church uses demographers. The article doesn't back up that contention, however, or say where it originated. If it's true, then great, but as it stands now, the USA Today article is no more reliable than the SL Tribune article. We have no way to know which article to believe. COGDEN 19:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Mention of worldwide growth

• A good thing - It is useful to mention the continued growth in the Latter Day Saint movement, since that ties Smith's life to ongoing events. I feel "claimed" does not necessarily need to be used: the LDS Church's self-reported growth, as cited from the 60s until 2008, demonstrate obvious growth. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 03:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You could use the past tense and say that the Church grew during the late twentieth century; using that language would not imply that it was still growing. We know at least that the rate of growth has slowed.--John Foxe (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have evidence showing the rate of growth has slowed, please provide references. And i mentioned up above that I added a new reference showing growth. Proudneutralmormon (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference you added is actually quite good about discussing the way the church counts its membership and what that means. For future reference, my preferred version of the intro phrase under debate is "...has millions of adherents and continues to grow worldwide", though most disagree with me, so I'd be happy with "...claims a membership of over 13 million and continues to grow worldwide". I realize that "worldwide" is sort of a buzz word, but it applies. I push for the phrasing "continues to grow worldwide" because it implies past growth as well as current growth, as is the case. Foxe, that the growth has slowed in recent years is possibly unnecessary detail for this article. Suffice it to say that the church continues to grow. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 04:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Unnecessary -- This is an article about Joseph Smith, not the modern-day religion he founded, which he no longer controls. I personally think the movement is still growing, but if his religion were shrinking, that wouldn't make him any less of an important historical figure. Nobody thinks, in the Jesus article, that it is critical in the introduction to specify whether Christianity is currently gaining or losing adherents. COGDEN 06:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel the reason for mentioning LDS growth is the same as including a "Legacy" section in the JSJr article: it illustrates the ripples of his influence on the world. As for the Jesus comparison, Christianity is much more widespread and Jesus much more universally recognized as influential. If we were writing Wikipedia in 200 A.D. I think it would be important to note the continuing growth of Christianity on the Jesus article. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 04:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that growth has actually never been higher than it has been in recent years. Growth has only appeared to slow down not because of a reduction in the number of converts but rather down to a stable amount of converts in relation to a continually growing claimed membership total, meaning as a result it is inveitably a lower percentage every year. There were about 314,000 joined in 2008 which attributed to a 2% growth rate, however back in 1984 a fall smaller amount joined yet attributed a higher percentage because the total claimed membership was less. So really the "slowing in growth" claim is quite invalid. Routerone (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus-driven result

Assuming the article's most current references are used for the statement, edit this sentence until a consensus emerges, noting and signing your changes in the list below.

"His legacy includes several religious denominations, the largest of which, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, claims a membership of more than 13 million and continues to grow worldwide."

"His legacy includes several religious denominations, including [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] and the Community of Christ, which collectively claim a growing membership of nearly 14 million worldwide."

• Proposed by me, B Fizz, according to my own preference mixed with what seems to be general consensus. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 05:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• I like the sentence B Fizz proposed with no changes needed. Thanks B Fizz this is a way better way than my try was to get a consensus! Proudneutralmormon (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• I included a proposal here, which gives a "14 million" number, which would also include the claimed membership of the Community of Christ. If we can find some further reliable backup to the idea in the USA Today article that the LDS Church uses reliable demographic adjustments rather than just a raw membership count, then the true number of Saints is probably closer to 14 million than the SL Tribune article would suggest, and my concern about misleading numbers largely goes away. Unless we can pin down a peer-reviewed number, and reconcile the sources, though, I still think we have to include the word "claims" for both growth and membership. COGDEN 20:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source for the Community of Christ membership? My 13 million was held to a tough standard. Proudneutralmormon (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Community of Christ's number of 250,000 is in the same boat as the LDS Church number--it's self-reported, not peer reviewed, and no specified methodology, but the proposed language takes this into account by making it clear that this is the "claimed" membership. In fact, it's probably a somewhat weaker number than the LDS Church's because it's a nice round number that seems like a rough estimate. See Community of Christ - General Denominational Information. COGDEN 14:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The USA Today article referenced the national council of churches. I looked at the national council of church's website and they charge $$ for their compilation. Perhaps someone could find a reputable journalist who had paid the $$ for the national council of churches report and we could reference that for the Community of Christ, and any other denominations that are part of J.S. legacy?

• Changed "who" to "which". COgden's new wording is concise, generalized, and neutral. I like it. I added the older version of the proposal above, for reference, since COgden's version is significantly different. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 10:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The number of members is unimportant for this article. Put back the "millions" and take the argument about numbers to some other page. The controversy is a red herring; it has nothing to do with Joseph Smith. De minimis non curat lex.--John Foxe (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion on the matter. And thank you for being willing to work with us to get a consensus, and make it the best sentence possible. I did check up on your Bob Jones Sr. Article that we discussed in a different paragraph, it says "Jones had preached to more than fifteen million people face-to-face. . . " and I looked through the references and was unable to find any references to newspapers that you said to look for, the main references seemed to all be coming from Bob Jones University. So while I do agree to the current version of the sentence showing 14 million edited by me, B Fizz, C Ogden and yourself, I simply want to record for the record that my simple proposal to provide numerical facts based on direct and third-party references has in practice been held to different standard than the Bob Jones, Sr Wikipedia article. Anyone reading this discussion will judge for their own self, and if I am wrong, I truly do want to hear about it. Proudneutralmormon (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to clarify for the record that I agree with John Foxe above. My edited proposal above is just a compromise. If everyone else thinks we need to specify a number, that's how I would do it. I actually don't think a number is necessary, and is not really germane to the topic--but I also think its crazy to have an edit war over the issue. I don't know why anyone would care that much about the issue, either way. COGDEN 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment about the numbers in the Bob Jones article. I said above that the numbers were "ultimately sourced in newspaper accounts." In the article, I just quote secondary sources (which are pretty poor, by the way). Furthermore, these Bob Jones numbers are guesses (probably low ball ones) at attendance, not membership in anything. And finally, no one to my knowledge has ever challenged the BJ numbers; lots of people have raised eyebrows at LDS membership figures.--John Foxe (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Is anyone able to quantify the number of denominations in J.S.'s Legacy? For example, several could be construed to mean 6 or more. Truly, how many denominations are there? Proudneutralmormon (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You can see them here.--^StormRider 18:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody really knows how many denominations there are within the Latter Day Saint movement. They pop in and out of existence quite frequently, and most of them are just a handful of members. We could never possibly determine an exact number. COGDEN 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I implemented the sentence, as it was after my "who->which" edit, on the main article. I have also changed this one to also include explicit mention of the LDS Church and the Community of Christ, marking my changes in bold. Thoughts? ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 02:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just my raw unsubstantiated opinion, but I think a link to the page explaining some of the denominations is sufficient. I don't think the names need to be spelled out. The reason I did include the name of the LDS church in on my first proposal is because the sources I had added only provided numbers for the LDS church. By the way, we need to back off from the 14 million back down to the 13 million unless a source for the Church of Christ membership is provided. Please follow our fictional reader who knows nothing about J.S.: 1) google Joseph Smith. 2) Curious what 14 million is based on. 3) Read 2003 ref, 2008 LDS stats, 2009 USA Today article - Where's the 14 million? 4) Follows the link to the denominations - no 14 million source there, either. 5) Walks away thinking we should have left it at 13 million! I think I or someone else should change it down to 13 million on the front page soon if nobody adds a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.90.70 (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Old Section Summary - removed

I deleted my effort at a section summary because I don't think anybody wrote in it besides me, and I think B Fizz's technique is much better. If anyone wants my old summary back, well, there's a thing called the undo button. Proudneutralmormon (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Intro: a few edits

Quick summary of a small part of the article history

• Routerone made six edits to the intro, one reverting John Foxe's edit, two small edits, and four related edits. The largest edit bears the summary: "Narrow down this statement, lead is too big and far too negatively toned"

• Duke53 reverted the batch of edits, asking Routerone to "please discuss before making wholesale changes."

• I, B Fizz, restored the edits, claiming that "Each of routerone's edits was small and clear. Do take your own advice, Duke."

• Duke53 undid my restoring of the reverted content, explaining: "Fiz, my edit also restored NPOV. Cheers."

Looking at Routerone's edits in more detail, and throwing my opinion into the mix:

Reduced explanation of Book of Mormon history

After Foxe expanded "history" to "a migration of Jews to North America and their subsequent history", Routerone undid the edit, stating "that is not specific or completely accurate wording". I agree with Routerone on that.

"an impressive temple" changed to "the Kirtland temple"

Routerone explains that he "remove[d] 'impressive', point of view statement." I don't have any feelings either way.

Reduced/changed explanation of events leading to Smith's death

Before the change (and after the change's reversion) it read:

"... Smith became the mayor of Nauvoo and commander of a large militia. In 1844, after a local newspaper exposed the practice of polygamy within the church and accused Smith of acting the tyrant, Smith and the Nauvoo city council suppressed the paper as a nuisance and then attempted to meet the ensuing outrage by declaring martial law. Accused of treason, he was jailed by Illinois state authorities and was assassinated by a mob."

After the change (diff) it read:

"... After a local newspaper accused the church of practicing polygamy, Smith supressed the paper, which lead to his arrest and imprisonment at Carthage Jail by the Illinois state authority and subsequent assassination by a mob."

I agree that the older wording is, well, wordy...just a little more than summary detail level. I do have a few issues with Routerone's proposed version. According to me:

• Mention of Smith's mayorship should be included.

• Polygamy wasn't the only accusation that lead to the newspaper's suppression.

" its members known as Latter Day Saints" removed

I agree with this edit; the Latter Day Saint movement is already mentioned.

Comments? ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 23:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost always in favor of cuts. What do you think of these?--John Foxe (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your cuts look good to me. You'll see that I put the mention of Smith founding the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) back in. I think that's important, and it helps prepare the reader for the following intro paragraphs that mention the church. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 02:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought "denomination" was an odd word to use here, and "restorationist" is a word understood only by the cognoscenti.--John Foxe (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• Book of Mormon history: If the issue is the word "Jews", then I suggest we replace it with "Israelites". I think it's worth giving a very brief description of what the golden plates were said to contain. Otherwise, the reader is left wondering what the significance of the plates are.
• "impressive temple": I think we need some context as to why the Kirtland temple is included here in the introduction. There are two: (1) the building was perhaps the most impressive structure in the American West at the time, and (2) building it nearly bankrupted the church and was a financial disaster. Maybe we can make these two points in a very succinct way.
• Explanation leading to Smith's death: His death is the "climax" to his life story, and the culmination of many trends. It is very important in the introduction, and should be given space. I think the "long" version is good. Obviously, polygamy was not the only factor leading to his death, but was an important one. The main other factor--probably the most important--is that Smith was portrayed as a tyrant, and above the law. To give context to the Nauvoo period, I agree we need to mention that he was the mayor, but also that he was commander of the Nauvoo Legion.
• Its members...: Agree that it is redundant.

COGDEN 10:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the point of Smith having too much power, "being a tyrant", is important, but it seems important to point out that this perspective of outsiders/nonmembers/and past members followed the early church wherever they settled. It was focused on Smith as the head of the Church, but this was a thought against all members and particularly its leaders. My recommendation is not to just level the charge against Smith, but that this view was pervasive for all members and particularly leaders. --^StormRider 15:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In regard to Smith "being a tyrant" -- the practical differences between frontier democracy and the emerging theocratic structure of the Church had been an issue since the Kirtland period. Those outside the Church structure saw Joseph making all the public decisions -- i.e. acting the tyrant. WBardwin (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It was not just about excessive power, but the allegation that Smith thought he was above the law. In addition, the Nauvoo Expositor, in particular, alleged practices that were unknown to most Mormons. COGDEN 21:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations may be required

The following paragraph was removed by another editor. It appears citations would be required before the material could be placed in the article. Discussion. WBardwin (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Smith may have first taught the doctrine in 1831, when he dictated a revelation (questioned by a few Mormon scholars) that commanded married Latter Day Saint elders to take wives among the Native Americans in order to make their descendents "white and delightsome." Part of the rationale for practicing polygamy was to allow elite Saints to acquire a large righteous posterity and thereby increase their status in the afterlife. The doctrine of plural marriage was at first kept secret, and in Smith's lifetime anyone to whom he taught the doctrine had a moral duty to either practice it or risk damnation.

This is all very citable material. It's just a matter of finding the citations. Maybe one of the polygamy-centric works such as Compton or G. Smith. Actually, this stuff might be covered in the Mormonism and polygamy article and we can find citations there. COGDEN 23:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with (and suspicious of) a few points raised in this paragraph. Particularly, the commandment to take (plural?) wives among Native Americans, and the "risk of damnation" for not practicing it. "Increased status in the afterlife" also seemed like strange wording. This is indeed a delicate subject; careful wording and citation are both needed to maintain neutrality. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 00:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your last point, and I'm treating this language as a rough draft, which I and maybe others will work over carefully at some point to make sure everything is well-cited, balanced, and accurate. But the basic points behind the statements are pretty solidly citable. COGDEN 01:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)