Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Joseph Smith as King

"Though Smith was crowned king, Jesus would periodically appear during the Millennium as the ultimate ruler. Following a thousand years of peace, Judgment Day would be followed by a final resurrection, when all humanity would be assigned to one of three heavenly kingdoms." THis says Joseph Smith will rein as King. This has no reference, I am LDS and have never heard of this in my life... I want badly to delete it, May I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton (talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added a citation to Bushman, Samuel. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see more primary sources on this subject, quotes commonly accessible show differently. "For the Lord shall be in their midst, and he will be their king and lawgiver."- Joseph Smith, D & C 45:59 Perhaps Bushman is referring to this statement, but nowhere can I locate source stating Smith will be king: " Christ and the ressurected saints will reign over the earth during the thousand years. They will not probably dwell upon the earth, but will visit it when they please or when it is necessary to govern it."- Joseph Smith, Teachings, p. 268 I have found a number of such inconsistencies throughout the article and I cannot fix them all on my own. Please take the time to reference primary sources in addition to secondary sources ( a biography is not a primary source). I recognize the bias on both sides, but this is my religion and I believe a balance of both kinds of sources would help this article's neutrality immensely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton (talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia privileges authoritative secondary sources over primary ones. Although it sounds strange to anyone who's done serious writing, Bushman and Brodie, as peer-reviewed secondary sources, trump Joseph Smith.--John Foxe (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not that Smith would be king. He already was the Millennial king, as the Council of Fifty had ordained him to that position. There are very good primary sources for that (e.g., William Clayton's journals and statements by many who were there), but we don't even really need to discuss them because I don't think the issue is controversial among mainstream Mormon and non-Mormon scholars. COGDEN 20:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If Smith had presumed to be king of the United States, he'd have had to compete with this guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not king of the United States. He was king of a shadow world government that would soon serve as the political institution by which Jesus governed the earth during the Millennium. Smith is not the only religious leader of his era who thought that there would be a one-world theocratic government during the Millennium. But he was the only one who had a concrete plan to make it happen. COGDEN 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a shadow world government. Now known as the Trilateral Commission, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't that kind of creepy shadow government that is the subject of conspiracy theory. They just wanted to organize the "Kingdom of God" so that it could take over when the nations of the world were destroyed by the impending world war that was to proceed the Millennium. COGDEN 08:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Tweak to First Paragraph (Seer Stones)

The first paragraph has the following sentence.

Professing a God-given ability to see visions while peering at seer stones, Smith said he used this ability to translate the writing on the plates from their unknown language into English

The terms 'peering' and 'professing' seem unclear or awkward. I thought he was looking at the reflection in the translation and so 'peering at' might even be incorrect. And 'professing' might be questionable, not that Joseph was hiding the fact, but that word seems to connote an orchestrated effort to publicize his sacred gift, which I have seen no evidence of. 'Stating,' or 'acknowledging,' would be better. Also, as this information is available later in the article, it makes sense to shorten it up a bit.

As a starting point, how about,

Through the use of "seer stones," Smith claimed he used his God-given ability to translate the unknown language on the plates into English.

Seems a little more succinct.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Good suggestion. His talent for divining with seer stones was established before he started translating, and is important in itself apart from just translating. So I'd modify your suggestion slightly to: "Smith claimed he used his God-given ability to divine with seer stones to translate the unknown language on the plates into English." COGDEN 04:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

These suggestions have the right idea, but both have awkwardness to them as well.

Through the use of seer stones, Smith claimed... - Smith did not need seer stones in order to make claims; this sentence structure is a little unclear.

Smith claimed he used his God-given ability to divine with seer stones to translate... - what is the (claimed) God-given ability? To divine with seer stones. But this sentence structure makes that a bit ambiguous.

I would prefer sticking with phraseology similar to Smith's own claim for the summary: Smith claimed that, "by the gift and power of God", he translated the unknown language on the plates into English. It doesn't hurt terribly to leave the seer stone(s) detail to the article body. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with that BFizz. I like COgden's suggestion but don't like the term 'divine' as a verb. Makes me think of water divining. I know it has common usage, but semantically I think it has a more mystical allusion.

I would support your proposal;

Smith claimed that, "by the gift and power of God", he translated the unknown language on the plates into English.

Especially given that the process is broken out in detail later on even to the point of the hat, seer stones, and processes he may have followed.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I don't know if I should start this in a new section, but in the first paragraph it also states,

"[He] organized what he said was a restoration of the early Christian church based on this book and his interpretation of the Bible."

Has there been discussion on this one before? My understanding is that Joseph Smith did not base the restoration of the Church on these restored scriptures, but on a foundation of Priesthood authority founded in Jesus Christ (i.e. Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone). I know this may sound picky, but as it reads now it sounds like Joseph read about Christ's Church in these "restored" scriptures and then chose to organize a Church. Which kind of misses his teaching that he acted under the direction of Christ in doing what he did. While most Church members see the restoration of these scriptures as a precursor to the restoration, it would likely be better written,

"[He] organized what he said was a restoration of the early Christian church as was found in this book and his interpretation of the Bible."

or for brevity,

"[He] organized a "restoration" of the early Christian church as was found in this book and his interpretation of the Bible."Canadiandy1 (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I've been bold and eliminated the phrases Canadiandy1 dislikes. I figure it was easiest for me to do because no one who's been around here for any length of time can accuse me of being pro-Mormon.--John Foxe (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am satisfied with Foxe's edit, though the resultant sentence could probably be further improved. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Foxe's edits are an improvement.COGDEN 04:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks John. Thumbs up!Canadiandy1 (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I'm gratified the cuts have been viewed as improvements.--John Foxe (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Smith was not assassinated

I discussed this at Talk:List of assassinated American politicians but apparently it must be discussed here as well. Smith's death was more of a shootout than an assassination ... he was armed and fired shots during the altercation. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It can still be an assassination if the victim attempts to defend himself, no? But more importantly, do reliable sources call it an assassination? alanyst ^/talk/ 00:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't heard it called an "assassination" before. It seemed more like a "lynch mob" situation. I might argue more about the term "politician", though. Yes, he ran for President (sort of), but so did Pat Paulsen. And I'm not sure being killed by an angry mob counts as "assassination". Was that character in Romania "assassinated" when he and his wife were put at the opposite end of a firing squad? Or Mussolini, likewise? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hence the implied suggestion that we let the reliable sources guide our terminology, rather than a debate with undertones about whether he was a victim or meeting a well-deserved end. alanyst ^/talk/ 01:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This word from the Oxford English Dictionary: "the taking the life of any one by treacherous violence, esp. by a hired emissary, or one who has taken upon him to execute the deed."--John Foxe (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? First, the term assassinated is not even in this article (unless I missed it somewhere). The neutral term 'killed' is used in both instances I saw and should, I feel, be left as is. LDS would prefer the term 'martyred' or 'murdered' but I can't see any argument on either side that he wasn't 'killed.' As to the fact he shot back, I am left to ask what the point of that has to do with anything. Some critics use it to paint Joseph in a poor light.

If I was in prison wrongfully, was aware of a government or mob conspiracy to take my life, and then had a mob of 100 vigilantes (makes them sound quite cowardly to me) storm my jail cell and didn't take up arms to defend my friends and safety, I'd be called a coward. As it turns out, he seems an amazing mix of noble, astute, and prudent. Love him, or hate him, he was no coward.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Canadiandy1 says: "Love him, or hate him, he was no coward".

•... he met Emma Hale and, on January 18, 1827, eloped with her because her parents disapproved of the match.

• Soon after Smith reportedly performed an exorcism in Colesville, he was again tried as a disorderly person but was acquitted. Even so, Smith and Cowdery had to flee Colesville to escape a gathering mob.

• After a warrant was issued for Smith's arrest on a charge of banking fraud, Smith and Rigdon fled Kirtland for Missouri on the night of January 12, 1838.

• When Lilburn Boggs, the Governor of Missouri, was shot by an unknown assailant on May 6, 1842, many suspected Smith's involvement because of rumors that Smith had predicted his assassination. Evidence suggests that the shooter was Porter Rockwell, a former Danite and one of Smith's bodyguards. Smith went into hiding, but he ultimately avoided extradition to Missouri because any involvement in the crime would have occurred in Illinois.

• After instructing his clerk to hide or destroy the minutes of the Council of Fifty and ordering the Anointed Quorum to burn their temple garments, Smith fled across the Mississippi River.

Yeah, he was a very brave man. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

He was a world-class flee-er. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We understand you hate him. You're belaboring your point. Reminds me of the Longfellow lyric to "I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day," that reads, "For Hate is strong/And mocks the song/of Peace on Earth, good will to men." And I'm sure it is easy for you to judge him as you have probably also endured being poisoned, beaten, tarred, unjustly imprisoned in horrible conditions for months, had six children die in infancy and been sentenced to die by firing squad. Or at least maybe you've watched some movies about such occurrences.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

We ? Do you have a mouse in your pocket ?

Hate him ? Fairly difficult to hate some guy that's been dead for 166 years.

Judge him ? I'd say that I'm judging his legacy, which obviously includes cowardice.

You came here and offered the (unsolicited) opinion that he was 'no coward'; in about two minutes I came up with five instances where Smith did the old 'cut & run'. I was making no statements about his character ... only that he hadn't been assassinated. If you continue to make those type statements be ready to have them challenged. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 08:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's all have a cup o' tea and get back to the topic at hand. For all the bluster Canadiandy does have a valid point in that "kill" seems to sum it up rather nicely. Is there any problem with leaving it "killed"? - User:Padillah signed by B Fizz since Padillah forgot

Duke, and everyone, WP:NOTFORUM. I think we all agree that "kill" works just fine. "Murder" would also be fine, imho. Whether Smith should be included in List of assassinated American politicians should be discussed there. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ya think ? So did I, but User: Routerone wanted it discussed here also. He didn't bother discussing it here, but wanted it to be discussed ! Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added this article back to Category:Lynching deaths in Illinois, though the category itself is rather small and possibly due for deletion. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Duke53 deserves a public apology. I made a sarcastic comment which thankfully Tedder reverted. From my view Duke53 has played by the rules on this discussion and I did not. He did not deserve my immature retort. I thought I had gotten over being petty over this issue and apologize to everyone for bringing down the decorum of the discussion. I have been treated with great courtesy over the last couple months by everyone here, and I am ashamed to have to admit to having acted so poorly, especially after having been treated so fairly.

Sincerely,

Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

"Unknown language" or "Reformed Egyptian"

Having just noticed there, an unregistered contributor altered the lead paragraph and changed the description of the Language of the plates from "unknown language" to "reformed Egyptian". Immediately another anonymous editor then reverted this, only for Duke53 to revert again and entrench the disputed non-consensus modification to the page.

I do believe this ought to be discussed properly to reach an agreement. Many LDS scholars dispute that "reformed egyptian" was merely an adjective used to describe an "unknown language" than an actual subject title of a language in total. To explain, it is likely to have been used to describe a somewhat altered and unique variant of Egyptian, rather than be a "language in itself". This can easily be interpreted in either way.

Thus its worth noting that sticking "reformed egyptian" in the article as a "noun" can be saw very easily as a Point of View addition. The truth being we dont actually know what this language is, it is as the article should say an "unknown language", and its unfair to try and place it down to being anything else. Routerone (See here!) 11:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Calling it "Reformed Egyptian" only serves as a POV way to validate the language and the claim. Padillah (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a big difference either way. "unknown language" is fine in the lede; so if "reformed Egyptian" causes strife, let's stick with the former. It should certainly not be "Reformed Egyptian" with a capital R, but the E in "Egyptian", when referring to the Egyptian language, should always be capitalized. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Moroni makes it clear that "reformed Egyptian" is the name which the Nephites have given to a script based upon Egyptian characters, and modified over the course of a thousand years (See Mormon 9:32). [1] Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Poor form to go ahead and re-revert when it's still being discussed, Duke53. Please respect the Bold-Revert-Discuss process by self-reverting until there is a clear consensus for your preferred version. Routerone brought this issue here in good faith and it's not right for you to circumvent that. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah ... I was BOLD and reverted an unexplained edit by an anonymous editor; Routerone reverted that with no 'discussion' (after a single comment he made on the article talk page) ... so I agree: he used poor form. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

p.s. It's good to see that you remain so interested in me and my editing here at WP. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no discussion at all, just back-and-forth reverting (including once by you), until Routerone brought up his reversion on this page and asked for input. I am mystified how you can classify his comment as "no discussion". And in spite of the ensuing discussion, which has been largely in support of the "unknown language" phrasing, you simply gave your take on it and immediately re-imposed your reversion. On what basis did you decide it was okay to ignore the opinions of other editors here? You are not working collaboratively here, and I am asking you civilly to self-revert and show more willingness to work with others instead of against them. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC) P.S. - I have taken the liberty of correcting an unclosed italic tag in your post above so it does not affect everyone else's posts below.

• A few definitions of discussion:

•A conversation is communication between multiple people

•A series of exchanges among at least two participants

• ... speak with others about (something); talk (something) over in detail

So, you can see that he didn't 'discuss' anything, just reverted my edit. Cheers. 20:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Did you notice that I cited a source for calling it reformed Egyptian  ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Meh. He invited discussion and explained his reasoning. You're arguing a semantic technicality when the meaning is clear. You make it very hard to engage in good faith discussion with you. I'm done with this meta-conversation. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: 'inviting discussion' now = 'discussion'. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Did you notice that I cited a source for calling it reformed Egyptian  ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Back on topic: I prefer the "unknown language" phrasing because calling it "reformed Egyptian" without qualification in the lede suggests to the typical reader that it's a common name or label for a known language, even with careful capitalization. The former phrase is less confusing in my opinion. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer "unknown language" as well. Reformed Egyptian is indeed an unknown language, and I think it's more important to convey Smith's idea that the language was "unknown" or "lost" (and thus could not be translated except through divine power), rather than that the language had some tenuous connection to Egyptian hieroglyphics. COGDEN 22:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Did Joseph Smith know the language he was “translating”? A person cannot effectively “translate” a language one does not know. If he did not know the language, then even Joseph Smith was confused by the mystical process, because the process would be better described as receiving a dictation of something translated by a mysterious entity. My proposal:

During the late 1820s he became the leader of a small group of followers who believed that an angel had given him a book of golden plates written in a lost language described as “reformed Egyptian” and containing a religious history of ancient American peoples. Smith said that via supernatural means he had “translated” the writing on the plates into Biblical King James styled English. In 1830, he published the translation as the Book of Mormon and organized what he said was a restoration of the early Christian church.

I predict a fight over placing quotation marks around “translated”. If the quotation marks are removed, then editors would be with reason to add excessive verbiage explaining the oddities of the claim to translation. With the quotation marks the careful reader might realize there is more to look into if desired without distracting for the main summary that the paragraph is.Mormography (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, as the resident never-been-a-Mormon, I think it best to leave the lede alone. Let the interested reader read on. One thing I've learned about opening the proverbial can of worms here at Wikipedia is that once the can's been opened, it's tough to coax the worms back in, and they can wriggle off in the most frustrating directions. Besides, I'm an opponent of "sneer quotes" in formal writing ("gay liberation," "patriotic shrine," "religious conversion," etc.)--John Foxe (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BFizz that I do not see a big difference either way, but disagree with BFizz’s reasoning that the first edit is preferred to the second when there is a disagreement. I have not heard a valid reason as to why both should not be included as I propose. All I have read is agruments to not edit the lead to avoid further disagreement, ultimately favoring one side of the disagreement.

Was Joseph Smith fluent in reformed Egyptian? This is something I have asked Mormon’s, but never get an answer to. If Joseph Smith was not fluent in the unknown language he says he translated, then the lead is very misleading (no-pun intended) to the reader as new-to-the-subject.

I like that expression sneer quotes. Of course because John Foxe quoted sneer quotes doesn’t mean he was necessarily sneering someone else. In formal writing sneer quotes are often replaced with the phrase so called in front of the item otherwise sneer quoted. Whether sarcasm or neutral point of view is intended with the phrase or the quotes depends almost entirely on the infliction of voice or known position of the author. However, the fact the technique is being invoked suggest to the reader there exist a disagreement in proper phrasing.

If not the lead, then it appears there is agreement that portions below may need some help. End of second to last paragraph in Early Years proposal:

This time, he said, he retrieved the plates and placed them in a locked chest. Smith said the metallic plates were written in a lost language described as reformed Egyptian and contained the religious record of indigenous Americans. The writing on the plates is claimed by faithful to have been translated via supernatural means into Biblical King James styled English. According to Smith, the angel commanded him not to show the plates to anyone, though he claimed he was later allowed to show them to a select few.Mormography (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotes are unnecessary because the article says that Smith "said" he translated the plates. Nothing more is needed. COGDEN 04:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

But yet you felt it necessary to quote the word said, interesting. I can understand saying quotes in the article are unnecessarily, but it is a hasty jump to say nothing more needed.Mormography (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Mormography. "...yet you felt it necessary..." ", interesting" "hasty jump". I'm sensing sarcasm. I don't agree with COgden on many points, but if you are implying he is pushing some pro-Joseph agenda, I think you are greatly mistaken. I'm not sticking up for him, but I will stick up for unfair treatment here. No hard feelings, I made the same newcomer mistakes (and still do) earlier on. 173.180.120.36 (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

It is true. Smith did say that he translated the plates. He said he did it (quote Smith) "by the gift and power of God". The proposed sentence about "claimed by faithful..." seems sketchy, though correct. I'd say stick with what Smith said/claimed. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I think it's true that nothing more is needed than that Smith "said" he translated the plates. To my knowledge, Smith never claimed that he didn't understand Reformed Egyptian. In fact, he said he spent the first few months of his translating work trying to decipher the meaning of individual characters which he said he copied from the plates. When Oliver Cowdery tried to do his own translation through the medium of his dowsing rod, Smith's revelation chided him for expecting that the translation would just come to him without any mental effort of his own.

Plus, even if we assume (as Smith apparently later told some of his friends and family) that Smith's translation was a purely mechanical process of reading sentences in the stone, I disagree that this mechanical process can't be called translation. Computers can translate by a mechanical process, without understanding what they are translating. COGDEN 01:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to John Foxe’s position of leaving the lead be following the keep it simple principle and avoiding arousing the uninterested reader’s interest. Whether or not a mechanical process might be called translation is an interesting digression (see Chinese Room). If a computer translates this entry then clearly I did not, but rather I had the computer translated it. Suppose someone claimed they rode a horse to work every day to describe operating a motorized wheeled vehicle to work, of course a little explanation would be warranted if not quotes. Anyways the mere fact that COgden had to go to such lengths to explain his position clearly shows that more is needed.

Whoever edited the Golden Plates entry obviously understood all this because they quoted “translated” and added the detail to explain in the second to last paragraph of the Translating the plates section. If that is good enough for the Golden Plates article then it is good enough for this one. Also, has that article mentions, Grant Palmer’s observation indicates that even Joseph Smith thought the translation should have been the same very time, indicating it was not him translating.Mormography (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you want to make a distinction between what is normally called translation and whatever Joseph Smith was doing, but I can't figure out how say, changing "Joseph Smith translated" to "the translation process occurred" does anything but make the sentence a passive (and therefore weaker). Why not try to come up with a short sentence explaining how the word "translation" is being used in the article? That way the term won't need to be written around or explained anywhere else.--John Foxe (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I did, see above, but then I realized as I stated in the edit summaries, the translation discussion did not fit well there. The truth is no one knows how the word is being used. The Golden Plates article does the best job of explaining and its treatment should probably just be copied and paste here. Fact is the passive voice in these sentences is the strongest way to uphold the Wikipedia philosophy of NPOV. As I stated in the summaries, that is what is accomplished, NPOV, if that is important.Mormography (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In the end, the article does do a good job of describing what Smith meant when he said he translated the plates. However, that full story does not belong in the lede, where we have to very briefly summarize the entirety of Smith's life. It's not wrong to say that Smith said he translated the plates. And we can't say that Smith misunderstood the word "translation", because if Smith did, then every scholar who writes about Smith also misunderstands the word, because they also use that word to describe what Smith says he did.

Also, lets not look to golden plates for guidance. Because this is a more developed and higher-quality article, I think guidance should flow in the opposite direction. COGDEN 22:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In the end, the Golden Plates article does an outstanding job of describing what Smith meant when he said he translated the plates. However, we have moved on from the lead discussion. It's not wrong to quote translated the plates. We can say that Smith misunderstood the word "translation" and just because many scholars repeated what Smith called translation does not mean those authors misunderstand the word. Also, lets not cop out that the Golden Plates is inferior when multiple editors are now know to agree with it.Mormography (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If we are just saying that Smith said he was translating, there's no reason why we need to play games over the language. The most neutral way to present the fact that Smith said that the angel told him to translate is to write that "Smith said the angel told him to translate."

I also think that it is fully neutral, and fully consistent with the tradition of both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars in this field, to refer to Smith's work as "the translation" when it's clear from the context that we're referring to what Smith called his work. Within the critical literature, Smith's dictated manuscript is always called "the translation" because that's the most convenient name for it, it's what Smith called it, and the reader is already fully aware that there is a dispute about the translation's authenticity. Scholars call Smith's work a translation in the same sense that they refer to "seer stones", even though only Mormons and mystics believe such stones actually contain the powers of seership, or they refer to "practicing magic" even though they don't believe in magic. It is clear that the words translation, seer, and magic are used with built-in critical distance. COGDEN 07:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been a bit tl;dr for me to keep up with, but I generally agree with COgden's recent edit with its accompanying edit summary. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am a little confused the COgden. What you wrote agrees with what I have been suggesting. I have argued "the translation" in favor of "his translation".Mormography (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess we agree then. I also agree with the change from "his translation" to "the translation". COGDEN 00:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(Needless to say?) ditto. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits

The article reads that;

"Smith's followers revere him and regard his revelations as scripture, while he has sometimes been demonized by critics."

I know it's picky, but the grammar sounds wrong or disjointed to me. It just sounds awkward. Not sure, but maybe the word 'while' is in the wrong place.

Could it not simply read,

"Smith has been revered by his followers and demonized by several (many?) critics"

or

"While Smith's followers revered him as an inspired revelator, he was demonized by many critics."

I'm not arguing a POV here, simply grammar.

204.174.31.155 (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Another minor edit. Should this be in a new section? The article reads,

"Smith's death led to schisms in the Latter Day Saint movement."

Isn't the 'Latter Day Saint Movement" a result of the schism?

Should it not simply read,

"Smith's death led to a religious schism in the Church."

(Note, I have purposefully used the term 'the Church' because, while it will be understood by the LDS as referencing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, at the same time it does not exclude the beliefs that others of the "Latter-Day Saint movement" have that the LDS faith broke from them.) Specific yet neutral. Short yet informative. Sassy but not too pretentious. Bold but not overbearing. Like a fine non-alcoholic wine.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I like the first edit. As to the second edit, the Latter Day Saint movement did not begin with the 1844 succession crisis. The term fairly describes the religion as a whole, and all of its factions, from the late 1820s onward. COGDEN 07:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

However, it's also fair to say that the "schism" happened in "the church", since within that time frame, it was the only one in the "movement". I agree that it's rather odd to call a single church a movement. Also, "schism" is a funny word if you think about it too much. Regarding the first edit: I like the "While Smith's followers..." version. The "Smith has been..." version is undesirably weak passive sentence structure. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I eliminated the "demonized" phrase because it's not elaborated on in that paragraph and tweaked the wording to eliminate the "while," which as Canadiandy has said, is grammatically incorrect. ("Although" would have been better, but shortening the sentence is best.) I've also modified the "schism" sentence to eliminate "LDS Movement."--John Foxe (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, John, COgden, and BFizz, for your input, attention and improvements here.

173.180.103.98 (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Edit in Ethics and Morality

This section seems extremely short and vague to have it be included. I know latter-day saints have much stricter of a moral code than this. On February 9, 1831 Smith dictated a very long and detailed revelation now known as "the law". This was a very basic summary of the ten commandments. He also installed the law of consecration a form of communalism, because it was considered unethical for one person to hold more property than another thus "the whole world lies in sin." He also believed science and religion agreed with one another. In this respect, certain aspects of the religion are similar to Baha'i Faith, and some Baha'ists regard him as a seer (but not a prophet). This because they believe one of his revelations foresees the occurrence of Bahá'u'lláh's proclamation as a Manifestation of God. Just type "Baha'i LDS" into google to find out. As for this:

"For instance, the Book of Mormon approved the killing of a man and appropriation of his property because the killer had been moved by the Holy Spirit. Smith believed he might occasionally violate laws and ethical norms in order to serve what he perceived as a higher religious purpose."

If this is referring to Nephi killing Laban, the assessment is simply inaccurate, because Nephi had the right to do so according to the law of moses; Laban had sought to kill him and his brothers previously. Usually if the Holy Ghost prompts someone under these circumstances, it is generally due to lack of knowledge. For someone not lds this can be viewed as rather peculiar.--Samuel Clayton (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, Samuel Clayton. While the points made in the section may be valid, they are not, I feel, unique or important enough to warrant special treatment.

For example,

"Smith believed he might occasionally violate laws and ethical norms in order to serve what he perceived as a higher religious purpose."

Not a very unique statement. Wouldn't most people accept this ethic, that is that the direct will of God trumps a man-made law. Isn't that what Daniel got thrown in the lion's den over? And would anyone be surprised to learn that a man who claimed personal revelation from God would also place God's will higher than all others? Wouldn't that be a given? I think the only unique event of note was when it worked out the other way, when God forbade Joseph to show the manuscript of the some of the plate translations, and he then persisted to request permission to share them. And even then, he only did so after receiving permission (albeit qualified with a serious caution).

If we're looking for a chance to shorten this up, here's a good place to start. Drop the section but relocate the information on the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Consecration somewhere else.

173.180.103.183 (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I do agree that the Word of Wisdom and rule of law paragraphs are a little bit shoehorned under the existing heading. However, I don't agree with getting rid of a discussion about Smith's views on the rule of law. Smith's view on this subject is a very complex and non-traditional one, and it says a lot about his character, and explains why sometimes he thought God's law was supreme, while other times he thought human law trumped God's law. But it does need some secondary sources, so I'm not happy with it in its current state. It's possible that this rule of law material can be moved to the preceding "race, government, and public policy" section.

I'm not sure where to put the Word of Wisdom material. It doesn't really belong in any of the other sections. The Word of Wisdom is about ethics, not theology, ritual, history/eschatology, government, or authority.

I also don't think the Law of Consecration/United Order topic belongs in the context of Smith's views of the rule of law. Smith always situated the United Order within the existing legal framework. It was a contractual communism. Moreover, it is already discussed in the "religious authority and ritual" section. COGDEN 23:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a stab at revising this section. I introduced a few new secondary sources, and I think it's clearer now what this section is about. Any comments? COGDEN 02:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, COGDEN. I appreciate your careful improvements.--John Foxe (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I like some of the changes. I made a small edit; I removed the word 'yet' as it seemed to make it read more as a gotcha statement, though doubtless undesigned.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Exaltation through plural marriage?

There is one aspect of this article that needs remodeling in my opinion. It is said in the section of theology of the family that Smith taught that plural marriage was the ultimate manifestation of the New and Everlasting Covenant. I have referenced the given source, and found it to be a clear stretch of what Smith said. Smith had only stated that those practicing polygamy were doing so under the direction of his revelations, and that they were blameless and would be exalted. If you wish to have that in the article, please do so. However, the problem with the current vision is that it says too much!

Every single source imaginable at least concurs that polygamy was not a part of the majority of Smith's followers. Logic concurs. If Smith taught this, what of all of his followers that were not practicing polygamy at the present time? Joseph Smith taught that for a man or woman to be exalted, they must be sealed by one having the authority for time and all eternity. He never said that a monogamous relationship was insufficient. I want a reference where he did.

The chiefest among those who refuse to let any revision stand that would correct this error has mormon garments on his page in the grossest disrespect. What a coincidence from an author trying to capture his version of "history". I want to capture the pure history of this man, monumental achievments and faults.

My suggested revision is the removal of plural before marriage, so that it says joseph smith taught that marriage was the ultimate manifestation of the new and everlasting covenant. Also, everything else suggesting he ever taught that plural marriage was the only way to salvation, which sorry to say, is half the paragraph which is exactly why it is erroneous.

If you wish to retain the page how it is, at least show me a reference other than the one falsely sited where Joseph Smith taught that a monogynous relationship would be insufficient for exaltation. That will require something more than pretending to be a scholar: actual scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.53.41 (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point, unsigned. We bantered this one earlier and came to a compromised outcome, but I think the work is unfinished. While I'm not convinced, I will allow that Joseph may have taught a 'fuller' exaltation through plural marriage. What is missing in the text though is the teaching of Smith that through monogamous Celestial Marriage an individual could also be exalted in the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom, an unlimited exaltation. So you are right to argue that in its present state the article is misleading. How would you recommend we add this key missing fact? Any help here COgden? Welcome, unsigned, and please stay to help. You have good insight.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I'm not seeing much input here, how about,

"Joseph Smith taught that full exaltation could be achieved only by women and men who were married within “the new and everlasting covenant.” (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19). He taught that a higher level of exaltation might be achieved through "plural marriage",[335] which was the ultimate manifestation of this New and Everlasting Covenant.[339]..."

Please note as a minor edit (in addition to the first sentence) I removed the parenthetical word 'Polygamy.' It originally followed the phrase 'plural marriage' which makes it quite redundant.

173.180.103.183 (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Remember that at Wikipedia you need an authoritative secondary source.--John Foxe (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is not that Foster doesn't support the statement. Rather, the problem is that we cite the wrong pages of Foster. The statement that Smith taught that polygamy was a requirement for the "highest exaltation" is clearly stated at least four times in the passage spanning pages 206-211 of Foster. I've made the change in the article. This is also supported in several other references (Compton, Brodie, Brooke, Smith), which I have also cited. COGDEN 10:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Referenced text versus Wikipedia text

Current reference number 335 is attached to the following points:

• (...) Mormons outside the Covenant would be mere ministering angels to those within, who would be gods.[355]

• Smith taught that the highest exaltation would be achieved through "plural marriage" (polygamy),[355] (...)

• Plural marriage allowed an individual to transcend the angelic state and become a god[340 (not 355)] by gaining an "eternal increase" of posterity.[355]

Reference 355 is Foster (1981, p. 145). Foster 1981 refers to "Religion and Sexuality: The Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community", written by Lawrence Foster, published in 1981 by Oxford Press. This url is provided for the Google Book preview of page 135 of the book. From there you can easily navegate to page 145 of the book. I read the page. It supports the first point clearly. However, the second two points are not clearly supported.

From my observation,

• The second-to-last paragraph on page 145 explains the third point mentioned above (the "eternal increase" one), but attaches it to "celestial marriage", whether monogamous or polygamous.
• The last paragraph on page 145 is the only mention of plural marriage being "a particularly exalted form of eternal or celestial marriage."
  • It never refers to plural marriage as "highest exaltation", nor as "higher than monogamous celestial marriage", but rather calls it a "particularly exalted form" and explains it as "accelerat[ing] the process [of exaltation]".
  • It never says that Smith said these things, but rather, that they are "the logic behind the Latter-day Saint version of plural marriage".

In conclusion, I feel that this source supports anon's suggestion to change "plural marriage" to "celestial marriage" for the indicated sentences. However, I'd like some more discussion before I try editing the section, since a little re-arranging will also be necessary to preserve the logical flow of the prose. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As to the second point, see my note above. Foster does refer to polygamy being a requirement of the "highest exaltation" on other pages, and the other prominent secondary sources concur. COGDEN 10:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I went to the library to review the new referenced pages of Foster. It does indeed assert that general LDS belief was that polygamy brought the "highest" exaltation, but it did not specifically state that this is what Smith taught. Can you give me a quote, probably from a source more focused on the man rather than the movement (such as Brodie), that specifically attributes this teaching to JS Jr? ...comments? ~BFizz 03:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Brodie reference that follows Foster in that footnote seems clear to me at least: "if a man went to heaven with ten wives, he would have more than tenfold the blessings of a mere monogamist, for all the children begotten through these wives would enhance his kingdom. The man with only one wife, on the other hand, would be denied even her and forced to spend eternity as a ministering angel rather than a god." (300)--John Foxe (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is the part that specifically says or clearly implies that "Joseph Smith taught..." So far all of these quotes refer to the principle being believed by LDS, but not necessarily that they were advocated or preached by Joseph Smith. (Perhaps this comes earlier in the same paragraph of Brodie?) ...comments? ~BFizz 23:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The words, "Joseph taught" are on the previous page, but it's clear that Brodie is applying the phrase to this statement as well. As is typical of Brodie, the writing style is impeccable but the scholarly niceties are lacking. There's no footnote to any source, primary or otherwise.--John Foxe (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. Thanks, Foxe. I just want to make sure that our assertions on WP are not synthesis: making assumptions based on what the sources say. If this assertion is Brodie's clear meaning, then we can stick with it. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Much better

I am the original unsigned instigator of the last edit regarding plural marriage. This is much better, and true. Perfectly done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creightonian (talk • contribs) 05:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

One last tweak? The section opens with the phrase, "Smith gradually unfolded...". Could we drop the word 'gradually'? I don't deny it took place over a number of years, but I think 'unfolded' suffices.

173.180.103.183 (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Sounds reasonable. COGDEN 00:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I think there are specific issues with this article which must be addressed. Some of the more controversial topics on Smith such as slavery or polygamy are well addressed, however they are all sourced on the same biography written by a member of the church. In fact, about 1/3 of the references in this article come from the biography: Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman. Richard Bushman has written many publications for the church. Can we find a more neutral reference for these topics please?

MichJEss (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no we can't. Bushman is regarded as one of the foremost authorities on Smith and his life and one of the only first-hand accounts. His POV has been asked and answered in this talk page (several times, in fact). When and where appropriate we have used Brodie to counter but that's not always possible. As you may imagine, it's rather difficult to find sources that are viewed as neutral by most people. Believers have a hard time accepting criticism and non-believers have a hard time accepting believers. In short, there is no such thing as "neutral" when it comes to inflammatory, grandiose characters like Joseph Smith. Padillah (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's actually very rare that Bushman and Brodie disagree on the issues of basic factual history that we cite in this article. Bushman and Brodie are the two preeminent Smith biographies, but Bushman is cited more often than Brodie mainly because his book is longer, newer, and more comprehensive. Bushman's book as been very well received by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars. COGDEN 13:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. If MichJEss believes there's a problem with Bushman, he should first suggest a replacement.--John Foxe (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to say I have to disagree. I no more trust information from Bushman about Joseph Smith than I would a biography of the Pope written by a member of the Catholic faith. I am attempting to locate a neutral reference. You are encouraged to help in the research. Until then I have replaced the tag because I am still disputing the neutrality based on a pretty obvious flaw.

Suggested Replacements thusfar: "Joseph Smith" by Robert V. Remini [[2]]

I'll be dropping by the library today to do some more research.

MichJEss (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite his being a non-Mormon, Remini's work is far more friendly to Mormonism and forgiving of Smith-related controversies than Bushman's biography is. Remini is well-regarded generally as a historian, but his work on Joseph Smith is not regarded as particularly insightful or authoritative. (See the review by Jan Shipps.) Plus, his work is rather short and is not nearly as comprehensive as Bushman and Brodie. I think we've already made about as much use of Remini in this article as we can, given the book's lack of depth. COGDEN 21:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the quality of Remini's biography. Remini's a gifted scholar and writer (he won the National Book Award for one of his Andrew Jackson volumes), but his Joseph Smith biography proves that one can't bank on a lifetime of research in one area to provide the requisite understanding of another.

My estimate of MichJEss has risen, however. I can't remember the last time someone on Wikipedia said he'd go to the library and do research. May he have the wind to his sails.--John Foxe (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

MichJEss, I don't want you to think that your concern about neutrality and using trustworthy source is falling on deaf ears, and I think you have good instincts to want to avoid works within a certain genre of polemical Mormon apologetics. But Bushman's book is not in that genre. Bushman is a professional history professor emeritus at Columbia U., and his biography is the preeminent academic work on Smith's life written by anyone, Mormon or non-Mormon. It is pretty much unanimous among the top scholars of American religion that Bushman's work is the best and most professional treatment of Smith's life in existence, with the possible exception of Brodie's book which has held that post for half a century. Take a look at Amazon.com, where you will see some of the reviews by non-Mormon experts in American religious history like John F. Wilson (Princeton), Harry Stout (Yale Divinity School), and Stephen J. Stein (Indiana University). Jan Shipps, a non-Mormon who is the foremost authority on Mormon historiography, called the book "the crowning achievement of new Mormon history." Nobody says that Bushman's book is perfect, but its academic credentials are unassailable. Plus, there's nothing in Bushman that is particularly controversial. It's all copiously sourced, and generally reflects the consensus of mainstream (both Mormon and non-Mormon) scholarship about Smith. COGDEN 01:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That is silly. He is arguably the greatest expert on Smith. There is not one person who could deny that. You cannot exclude him as a reference simply because he is Mormon. That demonstrates the grossest bias on your own part, to use only authors that are not Mormon. Unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creightonian (talk • contribs) 03:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, I actually agree with MichJEss that Bushman is not a good source, but likely for a completely different reason. I don't question his work or methodology, just his cynical approach. It seems that his aim is actually to focus on Joseph Smith's shortcomings not his strengths (or at least it seems that the information most referenced here is that which is juicy or inflammatory). So in the end you have two key sources, a bitter anti-Mormon and the only key academic Mormon researcher with a cynical focus.

So if you're questioning bias in the article, I agree fully with you. It's systemically way too anti-Mormon, though I do sense an increase in the dignity shown lately by contributors, who are showing great general sensitivity to the LDS community.

173.180.103.183 (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

If a non-Mormon complains that Bushman's too pro-Mormon, and a Mormon complains that Bushman's too anti-Mormon, we're about as close as we're going to get to NPOV in a cited source.--John Foxe (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't like that reality, John, but I think you're bang on this time.

173.180.103.183 (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

MichJEss's claim of POV

MichJEss, here's a space to describe what you believe is both cited to Bushman and is POV.--John Foxe (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"American religious leader"

I reverted your good-faith edit because I thought the extra wording was helpful in establishing context especially to those unfamiliar with Mormonism. But I'd be happy to discuss it on the talk page if you challenge my reasoning. Best wishes, alanyst ^/talk/ 23:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith is an "American religious leader" only because he was the founder of Mormonism. He can't be one without the other, yet that wording seems to imply that he's two things.--John Foxe (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly being an American religious leader does not inherently imply founding the Latter-Day Saint movement, but I think you're really saying that the latter implies the former. It does if you know that the movement is a religious movement originating in America—which all the regulars here of course do, but my concern is for those who might be coming to this article completely unfamiliar with that fact. I just think the phrase you deleted provides a nice bit of context as the reader enters the lede. That said, I'm very willing to concede the point if the weight of opinion is against me here. alanyst ^/talk/ 00:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have thought on this one a bit, and looked at it from a few sides. On one side it could be seen that being "American" (no disrespect intended as I am not one) might seem to pigeon-hole or regionalize him (i.e. just another American religionist). On the other hand it might play to a perceived nationalist bias (i.e. he's an American so the good ol' U.S. of A. can be proud). I think after the dust settles though it is important and relevant that Joseph Smith viewed the American Constitution as an inspired document and believed that the founding of America was significant in preparing for a gospel restoration. So I support the decision to maintain the phrase "American religious leader." And that from a Canadian (Smile).173.180.103.183 (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I think the current wording is fine though not my preference.--John Foxe (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the addition is probably okay. I have no strong view either way as to this specific edit, though in general I think there's nothing wrong with tying Joseph Smith with the United States, as several commentators have noted that Mormonism was, and still is, quintessentially American, probably more so than any other religion. COGDEN 12:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

At first I didn't like it, but after giving it some thought I support the current wording. I agree that it helps to clarify that Smith not only founded the religion, but continued to lead it. As a first sentence, with the inclusion of "an American religious leader", it is superb; however it is now redundant with the second sentence, which states that he "became the leader of a small group of followers..." I havne't yet thought of a good way to rephrase the second sentence to remove the redundancy. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the redundancy, B. I think I've fixed it.--John Foxe (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, Foxe. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the "Death" section

I found this section incomplete.

Death is an important event in anyone’s life and maybe more so in Joseph Smiths case. To say “Five men were tried for his murder; all were acquitted.” is incomplete. Furthermore, it implies that they were innocent. This is not supported by the historical record. The results of that trial may have influenced other trials. A very brief summary is lacking. For example in the Wikipedia section for Nicole Brown Simpson, the trial of O.J. Simpson is summarized in this fashion: “O. J. Simpson was arrested and found not guilty of murdering both her and Goldman in a controversial criminal trial. He was later found liable for the deaths in a civil suit brought by the families of the two victims.” Something similar could be written about the five men arrested and acquitted in the Joseph Smith murder.--Mdduffinmd (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdduffinmd (talk • contribs) 01:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Saying "who founded the Latter-day Saint movement, a group of Churches" is misleading about Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith founded a Church, and it was always presented as The Church of Jesus Christ, with the notion that there could only be one true Church. It is true that there are multiple Churches today that claim Joseph Smith as their founder, and that acknowledging this fact is needed, still it seems the wording is inaccurate. What Joseph founded was not a group of Churches, he founded One Church which has multiple claimants for being its modern successor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am open to other wording uses than what I chose but we need to keep central that Joseph Smith founded a Church, not a movement. It was from the beginning clear that it had centralized authority, and the formation of later Churches is by clear breaks or by disputes on who actually holds the authority. I think the current wording strikes a compromise between the claims of Joseph as founder by multiple organizations and the fact that few if any of those organizations see Joseph as founding anything other than an organized and centralized Church. The formation was a Church, with a clear designation of Joseph as First Elder and Oliver Cowdery as second elder on the day it was organized. Although other parts of organization are later, the fact that designated titles come from the start shows this is the organization of a Church, something we have to emphasize in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think the problem comes in that Smith thought he founded a church—and it was relatively unified during his life—but in reality and with the gift of looking back historically, we know he founded a movement, because the church he founded splintered a bit after his death. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to simplify your edit, which I think seems too long for the lead. (Also corrected a little spelling above.)--John Foxe (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe's simplification looks good to me. The finer details that were removed are covered in the rest of the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Foxe's simplification is certainly an improvement, but the sentence's current length makes it feel weak. I think we agree that the sentence should mention the following:

• American
• religious leader
• founder of a church
• the "source" of the Latter Day Saint movement

Despite my suggestion to shorten the sentence, I suggest we also mention that followers considered him both a political leader and prophet.

While writing this comment, I tried my hand at re-organizing the lede (yet again). Mainly, I moved the beginning of the historical summary of Smith's life into a separate paragraph, and expanded on the general reception of Smith by followers and critics. I am not desperately in love with it as it stands; but I feel that leaving the historical summary to the next paragraph is a good direction to go in. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I dislike the attempt to make presentist comments in the lead. Joseph Smith is who he is; what moderns think of him is relatively insignificant. Think of the article as biography rather than commentary, and don't try to get the reader to prejudge Smith.--John Foxe (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Now John, don't be modest. You know very well that you appreciate presentist comments/sentence structures, and guiding prejudgments...just as long as they lead to a more, how shall I say it, dark tone. Sometimes a balanced approach is not wrong even if the reality is necessarily positive. -^StormRider 14:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't get the reader to prejudge Smith - Isn't that what the lede is for, though? According to WP Biography guidelines on the opening paragraph, we should include both what the person did as well as why the person is significant. Smith is significant for his influence both past and present. We should not force the reader to go to the article body in order to understand the basics of why Smith is significant. Additionally, I fail to see why we should neglect saying he was/is "controversial". If there's one thing we all can completely agree upon, that would probably be it. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Everyone and everything is "controversial." If there's any word that arouses my irritation more it's the use of that nonsensical word in Wikipedia articles. B, I think you're making a mistake trying to inject presentism into the lead, and you've approached a major change in the wrong way by not discussing it first here.--John Foxe (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I realize that my edit was a significant change; however, I felt it best to use the WP:BRD approach to introduce it, rather than the discuss -> edit approach. As always, Foxe, I greatly appreciate your willingness to discuss our differing opinions; I hope you don't take my edit as an attempt to short-circuit such discussion. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have considerable respect for you,B, and I thought the edit out of character.--John Foxe (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Per my edit summary... many notable people are "controversial". It is not useful to mention that in the lead. Just describe the controversy instead.

As for "presentism", I disagree with John Foxe. The judgment of history and of the current era are important to mention when describing historical figures. People who were once unimportant are considered important now and people who were once important are no longer considered so now. That said, we must stick to the facts. Smith founded a Church which (we now see) became a movement after his death.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

John are you proposing that all major edits to the article be presented here on the discussion page until consensus is reached before editing the page? If that is what you are really proposing, then I would be more than happy to second that motion. However, all editors will need to abide by that same rule and not just those who make edits that are personally problematical for you. That sounds harsh, but you have a history of making wholescale edits without achieving any degree of consensus and then demanding that consensus be reached to change your edits. Just play fair and play by the exact rules that you like everyone else to abide. -^StormRider 16:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposition that we should reach consensus through discussion before all significant changes; I assume that Storm merely presented it rhetorically, but do want to make clear that I feel BRD is often a good approach. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if technically more accurate, I think the present edit is awkward and redundant prose. I'm trying to make an improvement that is sensitive to the above concerns. COGDEN 17:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, I like COgden's change. The reduction of detail regarding the Book of Mormon makes it more appropriate as a first paragraph. There are only two things that still bother me:

1. "he organized the Latter Day Saint church" - actually he organized the Church of Christ. That was the legal name of the church that he organized. I realize it is ambiguous today, but in his day it was unambiguous, and the wikilink clarifies exactly which one we are talking about.
2. "founded the Latter Day Saint tradition, including Mormonism" - this still seems like strange wording to me.

...comments? ~BFizz 23:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should not say that Smith founded the LDS church as that is both inaccurate and prejudicial (suggests that the LDS Church is the true heir of his teachings and the others are not).

Instead of "including Mormonism", we could say "which includes Mormonism", "from which Mormonism sprang", or "of which Mormonism is the largest component".

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to the hearty discussion above, I have taken the liberty of returning the lede to the original inclusion of Latter Day Saint movement, if for no other reason that this is the article to which it linked anyway. Any student of history can see that what existed on the ground in 1830 was quite different from the reality of 1844, and in turn the way folks saw things after Smith's death. Our compromise as editors was traditionally to use the movement phrase as a catch-all so that we didn't have a wrestle over perceptions of Smith and what he did during his lifetime. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

B Fizz's edit of my edit is certainly better. Well done. A Sniper (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sniper. It's worth noting that the opening sentence still fails JPL's argument that "Joseph Smith founded a Church, not a movement". However, I feel that the final sentence of the paragraph makes it plain enough that Smith founded a church. The use of "movement" is indeed an editorial compromise; although it is not ideal, editorially it just works better than any other alternative we have come up with. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we are going to bring up the Angel Moroni in the opening, we should bring up the First Vision. Yet that will just increase the length even more. I am trying to think of a way to do it quickly, moving most coverage lower. On the other hand part of me thinks a line like "Smith said he recieved visits and instruction from Jesus Christ and various angels and translated an set of ancient scriptures during the 1820s. In 1830 he published this translation as the Book of Mormon and organized the Church of Christ" would be better. The First Vision, the multiple visits from Moroni, the visits from John the Baptist and Peter, James and John to restore the priesthood are all hinted at in here, but the specific details are left for later. Some might object to te way the translating is discussed, but this is all prefaced with "Smith said" so really saying he said something again seems an unneccessary mitigation of his own words.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Smith: founder of a movement

We might try words other than "founder" to describe Smith's relation to the "movement", such as "origin" or "heart", though these are both awkward examples. "Prophet" has been tried and is inevitably problematic with some editors, who see it as an assertion of supernatural power rather than simply an assertion of cultural esteem. "Creator", "inventor", "instigator", "initiator"; these are also awkward or convey a strange POV. Just trying to brainstorm here, but "founder" is the best we've got, imho. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is with "founder/founded". Smith founded a church which evolved into the Latter Day Saint movement. As for prophet, I don't see why it is problematic unless we say "Smith was a prophet". Clearly, it's acceptable to say something like "Smith is considered to have been a prophet by members of churches in the Latter Day Saint movement." --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

How about Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and founder of the Latter Day Saint movement? That, or a reasonable facsimilie thereof, has worked for as long as I can remember. And the lede already says clearly that Smith's followers consider him a prophet. So what is it exactly that folks are concerned about? A Sniper (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a question of perspective. From Joseph Smith, Jr.'s perspective, he intended to found a church and he did. If you asked him if he intended to found a movement consisting of more than one church, I'm sure he would have retorted "NO!" quite forcefully. (Jesus himself probably would have had the same response to the question.) However, looking back from the 21st century, we can see that what Smith actually did was not just found one church but found one church which ultimately splintered into several churches which now constitute a "movement". I think we should explain all that in the lead but some editors seem to think it's too much detail and are looking for a concise way to communicate what happened without getting wrapped up in the details. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what Smith did could be considered, from an academic standpoint, the start of a movement. He drew from the restorationist ideas of Alexander Campbell and gave it a good spin, peppered with a decent dose of Burned Over District Americana. Yes, he started a church but that church went through dozens of changes from 1830 - starting a church was only part of the movement. We're working on an encyclopedia, not a church history book - and whatever Smith himself would say is so speculative that it can't possibly be a factor - I am sure that five editors would have five perspectives as to what Smith did or intended, or how significant the 'one true church' element was/is, hence our clear guidelines for using bona fide secondary sources and NPOV writing. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sniper's assessment of the situation. Richard, the last sentence of the lede currently says "His legacy includes a number of religious denominations, which collectively claim a growing membership of nearly 14 million worldwide." If you can think of how to rewrite that to include a little more detail regarding the division of the church Smith founded into various, then I think that would be a good place to do it. I understand the desire to include this detail in the first paragraph, but imho it just doesn't fit there. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"his revelations considered scripture"

The problem with the phrase "his revelations are considered scripture" is that it is imprecise. Is every word that Smith uttered considered "revelation"? What about every word that he wrote? I think we need to be precise as to what his "revelations" are. I think we are specifically talking about the three books in the Standard Works (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price). The article on the Standard Works mentions that these three books are the Standard Works of the LDS Church. Presumably, the rest of Mormonism (e.g. the Fundamentalist Mormons) also considers them to be Standard Works and I assume that they use that phrase. What about the rest of the Latter Day Saint movement? Do they also consider all three books to be "Standard Works"? What term do they use?

The article on the Standard Works mentions that the Standard Works are part of the open scriptural canon of the LDS Church. If you walked up to a member of the LDS Church and referred to the Doctrine and Covenants as "scripture", would they correct you and say that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are scripture but the Doctrine and Covenants are revelation that are part of the Standard Works? I just want to understand how Mormons use the word "scripture".

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite accurate to say that "three" of his works are considered scripture. Some of his works which are considered scripture are compiled into the Doctrine and Covenants and (within Mormonism only, but not within other LDS faiths), the Pearl of Great Price. Moreover, not everything in the Doctrine and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price is a revelation. Some of the sections are letters, or policy statements, or teachings. Part of the Pearl of Great Price is a history. So I think it's just better to leave it vague and say that the Saints regard some of his writings as scripture. COGDEN 17:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. "many of his writings are considered scripture" is better than "his revelations are considered scripture". Vagueness in the lead is OK if a more precise exposition is available in the main article text. However, no such exposition exists in the current article text. Given that this article is about Joseph Smith and Wikipedia is not paper, we need not get into a detailed exposition here but there should be at least a brief mention of the issue and a link to the appropriate article (e.g. to the Standard Works article). My feeling is that somewhere in Wikipedia, we should explain what you have written above. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The four standard works of the LDS Church are viewed as scripture; without qualification. Only some of Joseph Smith's revelations have been canonized. For one reason or another a lot of his writings never made it into Scripture. So in answer; there would be no correction; they are all scripture. When revelations have been accepted by the Church as a whole, they become part of the canon of the Church. If they are not made part of the canon, it means they have yet to be accepted and may never be accepted as having the value of Scripture.-^StormRider 17:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And yet what you wrote mentions only the LDS church and makes no mention of the rest of the Latter Day Saint movement. Are exactly the same writings considered scripture within the LDS church and within the Latter Day Saint movement? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think what Storm Rider has written is true as it applies to the LDS Church in Utah. However, I do not believe it would apply to the other denominations coming out of the 'movement'. In fact, there is still disagreement at several levels about who wrote what and what was revelation vs. speculation vs. interpretation. It is probably wise to leave the statement more open-ended, unless specifying the LDS church. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Good Article nomination...again

During the last GA review, the non-biographical sections were rather new. Now that they have had time to mature, I think the article is ready to pass a GA review this time. Unless anyone feels that there are serious issues with good article criteria that need to be addressed, I will again nominate the article for Good Article status. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated the article. Considering the backlog at good article nominations, it looks like it will be a month or two before it actually gets reviewed. As a reminder to all, anyone is free to perform a good article review, though of course if you have been involved in editing this article you should probably abstain from reviewing this one. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Political leader and prophet?

While this clearly belongs in the article, it seems not neccessary to mention Joseph's political position in the opening sentance. There are a lot of issues here, including that Joseph Smith did not become involved in politics in a direct way until after the Missouri expulsion. He never held a political office until then, and this could well have related to a feeling of betrayal by Col. Hinckle and a view that the best way to have good political leaders is to be one yourself. However another key is that Latter-day Saints did not see a clear line between political and religious, Jesus will reign literally as king, and especially once the government goes against you there is a feeling of a need for good government. This all seems to much for a the lead. On the other hand, maybe mentioning that Joseph Smith was mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois at the time of his death would work in the intro.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

In the 1820s

I reverted specifically because the phrase "in the 1820s" got moved from the beginning of a sentence to the end. (Generally, time references should come first in a sentence.) It's important to keep the biographical events in chronological order.--John Foxe (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I just aligned a sentence to the reference, but I am almost certain this is the result of numerous editing where a reference was dropped. Regardless, the reference provided clearly states these forms of spirituality were common and not widely condemned. -^StormRider 14:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Quinn says that there were laws against divination in every American colony and, later, every state.--John Foxe (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That would surprise me. Divining rods are still used in many states for finding wells. Do you think it is simply an unenforced law? I could believe that; laws are created and seldom removed from the books, just superceded by later laws. Regardless, a new reference is needed to support the old statement. -^StormRider 14:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know if there were any laws remaining on the books like the New York example (1813) mentioned by Quinn that punished "disorderly persons," a term that included "all jugglers [conjurers], and all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, or to discover lost goods." (26-27)--John Foxe (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

These kinds of vague and selectively-enforced laws were held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972. The old vagrancy laws didn't so much criminalize magic per se, as they did criminalize the act of being riffraff (i.e., a "disorderly person"). It was a crime to be the kind of person who goes around doing things like sleight-of-hand magic, palm reading, puppetry, card playing, excessive drinking, prostitution, being unemployed, being a convict, etc. Joseph Smith was prosecuted on the grounds his occupation was as a traveling magician, and therefore he was riffraff. He was also apparently prosecuted for being a swindler. So the trial was not simply about the practice of folk magic, which was not itself illegal. COGDEN 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from B0cean, 6 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} All references to the church on this page are incorrect. They are all "Latter Day Saints," which is incorrect. The official title is Latter-day Saints. And the church's official name is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." "Latter" is hyphenated with a lowercase "day." This is a non-debatable issue. You either have someone's name correct or wrong, no in-between.

B0cean (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The use of "Latter Day Saints" in this article does not refer exclusively to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The usage back in Smith's day was mixed between hyphenated and unhyphenated, so we usually stick with unhyphenated when referring to the pre-1844 church, since which church is the "true" continuation of it is disputed (principally by the Community of Christ, along with other 'fundamentalists', which can also be considered Latter Day Saints, though they are clearly not Latter-day Saints). ...comments? ~BFizz 22:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah! I see, thank you.B0cean (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead should be informative, not opinion filled

The lead to an article should inform people about the topic it discusses, in this case Joseph Smith. Saying he is "controversial" does not inform people. Say what he did, not what people think of him in the lead. There is no religion founder who is not controversial. There are multiple religions that posit that their teachings are correct and all other religions are false, thus Mohammad, Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Confucius and other religion founders will all be seen as setting up false systems by some people. The same could be said for Mary Baker Eddy and most modern religion founders, saying they are controversial says nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The lead section shows obvious bias, as does a lot of this article. I, for one, am interested in presenting the factual history here, but as many of the citations of this article are from authors who were openly biased towards the Latter Day Saint movement and Joseph Smith in particular, I seriously question the POV of this article. In any case, I will try to reword some of the most obvious POV problems in this article.W7jkt (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

With a subject like Joseph Smith, the sources simply are not going to be as neutral as they might be elsewhere. The best thing to do is what's largely been done: use the most reputable scholarly sources available, notably Brodie (from a skeptical viewpoint) and Bushman (from a believer's perspective). Despite their particular slant, their facts generally agree. Scholarship virtually always trumps material produced by non-scholars or the LDS Church.

If you review even a small portion of the archived discussions, you'll notice how often believers claim that the article's too anti-Mormon and non-believers claim it's too pro-Mormon. That kind of criticism makes me proud of what's been done here.--John Foxe (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

While I understand the need for both biased points of view in order to bring the article into neutrality, I do not agree that your main two sources stated above are sufficient for this article. I understand that there are numerous other sources, but there can be more substance to this article. Another POV slant that this article contains are the notations that include a quotation from the text where there is obvious bias. There are far more quotations with anti-Mormon slant than others as far as I can tell. In many instances, a direct quote from Joseph Smith himself can be applicable, and should be. Let the man speak for himself. I don't want to get into a large disputation over this article, but I do, however, want to point out the difference between what is purported and what is factual. Regards, w7jkt ^talk 21:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Odd as it usually sounds to newcomers, Wikipedia privileges secondary sources over primary sources. Therefore, to challenge the stated position of a scholar such as Bushman or Brodie, you have to bring into evidence the work of another scholar, not a quotation of Joseph Smith or material produced by the LDS Church. If I were writing a scholarly biography of Joseph Smith for print publication, I would frequently quote Joseph Smith in my work (although you might not like the quotations that I'd choose). But here at Wikipedia, quotations of Joseph Smith are largely POV unless they back the argument of some secondary scholarly work. At Wikipedia, Joseph Smith is not permitted to speak for himself—or rather, his statements are not permitted to be manipulated by either a Mormon or a non-Mormon editor.--John Foxe (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The introduction of the article should simply summarize what the article contains. It is not a place for opinion or new information. Good catch on the controversial. -^StormRider 05:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about Joseph Smith's statements being very POV, John, and I would reword my previous statement to say that quotes from him would sometimes be appropriate. Do you not agree, however, that the amount of notes and quotations from a skeptical POV outweigh that of the POV in the other direction? Also, what about including some of Hugh Nibley's responses to some of these claims from? As I said before, I do not wish to argue, but I would like to put forth a few ideas of changes to be made on an article that is, in my view, not as NPOV as it could be. Thanks, w7jkt ^talk 16:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the article's nicely balanced, although from my non-Mormon point of view, it's too favorable to LDS positions. (Making concessions is part of the price of reaching consensus at an article where most interested folks are Mormons.)

Despite his great learning, Hugh Nibley is not a "reliable source" in the Wikipedia-sense of that phrase. His writings were were published by the LDS Church and not peer-reviewed. He is a classic example of a religious apologist rather than a scholar.

Again, let me repeat what I've said above: Wikipedia privileges scholarly secondary sources over primary sources. Unless Joseph Smith's quotations buttress some scholarly secondary source, they should not generally be included here.--John Foxe (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We do not make concessions to interested parties in order to achieve consensus. We publish what reliable secondary sources say and give only due weight, i.e. not much, to opinions that are not supported by evidence.

In theory perhaps, but not in the real world of editing controversial articles like this one.--John Foxe (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Name

All of the Mormons I have ever known or met (including some Mormon missionaries) calle him "Joseph Smith"; no one calls him "Joseph Smith, Jr." This really should be in the introduction. Shocking Blue (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. However, since his Father was a person of influence within the early church (First Church Patriarch), and since there were two other Joseph Smiths (Joseph Fielding Smith and Joseph F. Smith) who served as Church Presidents it might be important to identify him this way initially in the article.

173.180.103.183 (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Not to mention Joseph Smith III!  ;) Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This artcle is long and detailed and will require a substantial amount of time. Editors please be patient. If it is determined that a hold is appropriate, it will begin once this reviewer has completed work.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In order to pass a GA nomination the article must meet the following standards:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: *NOTE = The article is to broad and speaks of the church too much. In just the few references I have checked I see a gold mine of information about the man himself but even what is being used has been written with OR and bias.

   B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Reviewer notes:

Images must comply with Manual of Style guidlines Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Image use policy: Each image has a corresponding description page. On that page, one should document the source, author and copyright status of the image, using one of the pre-defined image copyright tags. It is important to add both descriptive (who, what, when, where, why) and technical (equipment, software, etc.) information at the time of creating the page, which will be useful and highly informative to later editors and readers.

Whenever you upload an image, you should meet the following minimal requirements.

1. Always tag your image with one of the image copyright tags. When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images.
2. Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. For screenshots this means what the image is a screenshot of (the more detail the better). Do not put credits in images themselves.

Description: The subject of the image

Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from

Date: Date the image was created. The more exact, the better

Location: Where the image was created. The more exact the better

Author: The image creator, especially if different from the copyright holder

Permission: Who or what law or policy gives permission to post on Wikipedia with the selected image copyright tag

Other versions of this file: Directs users to derivatives of the image if they exist on Wikipedia

While many of the images are Public domain, their use on wikipedia in a GA article must have the proper information for consideration.

The following images have issues that need to be addressed to meet GA criteria:

• Joseph Smith, Jr. portrait owned by Joseph Smith III.jpg (infobox image)= This image is missing both author and source information. While the artist is historicly unkown, the photographer of the 2 dimensional work is not. This may or may not be the same as the source. The source is where the image came from and a link to the website should be provided. Without this information it fails GA standards for complying with MoS.
• Joseph_Smith_receiving_golden_plates.jpg = This image has the proper attrubution to the original artist (author), date and book title it was originaly published in, however it does not provide the source or author of the digitised file which is found here:http://newhampshireprimary.blogspot.com/2011/02/mitt-romney-jon-huntsman-mormon.html
• Book of Mormon English Missionary Edition Soft Cover.jpg (infobox "Book of Mormon") = The image is missing the date information
• Josephsmithtarandfeatherharpers.jpg = This image is missing everything but a souce link...which is odd since the source has the pertinent information.
• KirtlandTemple_Ohio_USA.jpg = This image has only photographer information and nothing else. It also has been tagged to "check the image description page on the English Wikipedia (or, if it has been deleted, ask an English Wikipedia administrator". This must be rectified or not used on this article to Pass GA review.
• NauvooLegion.jpg = This image is missing proper source information. The provided link is not correct. It does not contain author or date. "Apparently" is not acceptable source information.

*Joseph_Smith_first_vision_stained_glass.jpg = This image is owned by the Public Broadcasting sytem and it still retains the rights to this image. As stated in the terms of service: The Information available on PBS ONLINE® may include intellectual property that is protected under the copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws of the United States and/or other countries ("Intellectual Property Laws"). Such Intellectual Property Laws generally prohibit the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of all text, photographic and graphic (art and electronic) images, music, sound samplings and other protected materials. The violation of applicable Intellectual Property Laws may give rise to civil and/or criminal penalties.

While some two dimensional images are faithful reproductions Wikimedia commons states: When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically, through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on), it qualifies for copyright even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted. This is typically the case for photographs of three-dimensional objects, hence the rule of thumb that "2D is OK, 3D is not". The work presented in the image is NOT a mere 2 dimensional work. Stained glass requires "choice of framing, lighting, and point of view" as using a simple flash at anytime of day or night would NOT produce the image you see as well as the fact that the work is meant to be viewed from multiple angles in the same way as a sculpture, which by definition stained glass is.

In short, the license is incorrect and the original source STILL claims copyright. This image cannot be used for GA (or Wiki at all for that matter).

Photograph of an old stained glass window or tapestry found on the Internet or in a book

Y. Although many materials such as stained glass and fabric possess some three-dimensional texture, at ordinary viewing distances this texture is essentially invisible. As long as the surface is not noticeably curved or tattered/broken, and the original work is old enough to have entered the public domain, it is considered a faithful reproduction of the original with no original contribution.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Replies to the review

I'll take a look at addressing the image copyright issues. If anyone else gets to it before me, then all the better. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:Joseph Smith, Jr. portrait owned by Joseph Smith III.jpg

  Contacted uploader, requested source information. Commons:User_talk:Colejohnson66#JS_Jr_image_source. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  He got it from a website. But doesn't remember which one. I guess we just leave the source as "unknown", or perhaps we can download it from some website, and then re-upload it to the commons so we can put that website as a source. ;) ...comments? ~BFizz 04:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:Joseph_Smith_receiving_golden_plates.jpg Fixed

  [todo - COgden please look into this one that you uploaded]

• File:Book of Mormon English Missionary Edition Soft Cover.jpg

  I'm not sure what "date" is supposed to be here. 1982? (the year the subtitle was added) ...comments? ~BFizz 04:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:Josephsmithtarandfeatherharpers.jpg Fixed

  Added information as found in source. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:KirtlandTemple_Ohio_USA.jpg Fixed

  Modified presentation of information. Informed uploader. User_talk:John_Hamer#Kirtland_temple_pic ...comments? ~BFizz 21:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  Uploader says the changes are OK. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:NauvooLegion.jpg Fixed

  Modified information presentation. Corrected source link. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:Joseph_Smith_first_vision_stained_glass.jpg Issue dismissed

  This one will be tricky. See below.

Stained glass image

I emailed the Church History Museum, asking a few questions about the image. I might just take a trip to Salt Lake and photograph it myself. I've found various versions of this image online, but none under a permissible license:

• http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/27/the-first-vision-or-the-first-visit/
• http://sacredsymbolic.com/joseph-smith-jesus-christ-parrallel-lives/
• https://lds.org/ensign/print/2005/01/the-first-vision-searching-for-the-truth?lang=eng (very bottom of article)
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/49009209@N08/4485320584/
• http://deseretbook.com/First-Vision-23-x-31-Stained-Glass-Zions-Mercantile/i/5045742

I also found a similar work of art that we might consider photographing and uploading, if the original work is not copyrighted.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7156208@N02/412617797/in/photostream/

...comments? ~BFizz 22:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

BFizz, I believe I have a handle on the infobox painting. I found the original source and author of the first image before upload. If all that was done was photoshop work to improve the image, than the information can be used.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC) It's not the same image. I will continue to research this one out. It would be a shame to lose it. Nice image.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Image suggestions from reviewer

The infobox image is easily replaced but I do intend to see if I can find the nicer version even after the review is closed. It's just a really nice image and if we can't find the original source we will have to replace with the original upload as that is from the Church archives online while the other one is not. I have found two sites that use this image but they are both message boards that mat well have taken the image from wiki. The others can simply be deleted from the article if they cannot be fixed with no loss of quality to the article itself, but work is underway to correct them by another editor.

Stability

Work this out guys. Seriously. The article just came off protection and when I began the review it seemed to be holding stable. It has lost that stability which endangers the review. One criteria for "Quick Fail" is stablity. At this point I am NOT giving up with a quick fail but if this can't be smoothed out, GA standards that might be worked out may simply be lost within hours or days if it passes GA nomination.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that this article is a vandal magnet means it is unstable. The same could be said for such featured articles as Evolution, Harvey Milk, and Ronald Reagan--articles which always get opinionated edits, but which are stable because they are well-patrolled. There will always be opinionated casual editors who (often with good intentions) come in and try to impose a heartfelt but fringe view about Smith, but these are quickly reverted for violating WP:FRINGE or WP:NPOV. COGDEN 05:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. but that is simply incorrect. If the article is experiancing so many reverts that it is protected...it is unstable. The protection has been lifted and the constant reverts return. The review guidlines state "Edit warring, etc", so even though there are no real edit wars among the contributing editors, it is far from stable. I am talking about a single day. March 5th, were there was section blanking, vandalism, and simple disagreements on content and accuracy. The article is not stable. I am NOT quick failing over the issue for one reason...it wasn't so when I began. However, I am failing the stability portion of the review.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Evolution article is permanently semi-protected, and every time the protected status is experimentally removed, it gets hit with a lot of vandalism. Yet Evolution is not just a good article, it's a featured article. Nobody is clamoring to have the featured status of Evolution bumped down past "A" and "good" status to "B" status. Same with perpetually-protected FAs Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, Harvey Milk, Atheism, and Yasser Arafat, and even Angelina Jolie. Also, it can't be the rule that the Joseph Smith, Jr. article, and all other articles about the founders of controversial religious movements, are forever barred from GA status no matter how good they get. COGDEN 07:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede

The lede has one major problem.....it has little to do with Smith himself and skips a lot of the article to speak almost exclusively about the church. This need to be a tight summary of the overall article. which leads me to the next major problem...

Replies to lede review

Can you give us specifics on what major portions of Smith's life the lede is skipping? Or portions of the lede that are excessive detail and can be removed? ...comments? ~BFizz 02:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? You actualy can't see that the lede skips all the way up to adult life? OK...the lede needs to be a summary of the overall article. It skips all of "Early years (1805–1827)". I also think the article is over weighted with other information. There are several articles on Wikipedia about these subjects. This article is about the man himself. It should have much more information about his personal life, his wives, his children, his family etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The lede needs to mention his family life as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right, and I have revised the lede a bit to reflect your suggestions. COGDEN 06:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Article mixes subjects

A quick look at the article shows that there are really two subjects being discussed. The man and his church. While the church IS a part of the man's life, and a major part, the artcile needs focus. What is the article about. The man or his church or both. If both, then perhaps, simply renaming the article would be appropriate.

Replies regarding mixed subjects

He organized the church when he was 24, and died at 44, so nearly his entire adult life was deeply intertwined with the church. The article is about Smith, but it's virtually impossible to say anything about his adult life without talking about his church as well. The Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) and History of the Latter Day Saint movement are the main articles about his church. If you have any suggestions of information that we can leave out of this article and treat exclusively in those articles, please do tell. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't finished the review and the above is only a suggestion. Leaving out information may be a simple matter of copy edit, or may simply be a matter of adding context to the areas being discussed. It isn't such a stumbling block for the overall article...but the lede suggest the focus is the church right now.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing is obvious, the article has dropped his family all the way to the bottum. For an article about the man, this takes precedence over the rest on this article. This is a focus issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article does contain more information about his family than is in the last section. It has info about his parents' family, and about his plural wives (in the Nauvoo section). I agree his family is an important subject, but I'm not sure I agree it is the most important subject in the article, compared to such subjects as his founding of a religion, his arrest and near execution in Missouri, his death, and his teachings. COGDEN 07:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not say it was "most" important. I said it takes precedence in a biography about the man. Again, this is a focus issue. It need not be placed at the top....but it does not belong at the bottum.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your suggestion. Right now, Smith's family is broken into several different topics. There's his parents' family, the story of how he met Emma during his treasure hunting in the 1820s, maybe a couple of stories here and there about his children with Emma, an then later on there are the stories about his polygamous relationships. Are you saying that this information should be deleted from its present locations and moved to a new section at the beginning? Or kept in its original location but just duplicated in a summary form in a new section? Are we talking about completely new information that isn't in the present article? Thanks. COGDEN 06:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Scope

The article lacks focus and is far too broad in scope. Seperating the man from the church is not impossible and simply using information from other wikipedia articles as the basis for this article, while appropriate, is not enough. There is a great deal of information available and can be referenced and cited. http://www.google.com/search?q=Joseph+Smith+Jr.+the+man&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 --Amadscientist (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically, while he was alive, Joseph Smith was the church. Everything he did was an official church act. The scope of this article is roughly the same as the scope of every biography ever written about Smith. Really, to ignore his religious acts is to ignore the heart and pith of Joseph Smith. He would be an empty shell. I don't think it's the job of Wikipedia to re-write the book on Joseph Smith. So respectfully, unless I misunderstand you, I'll have to agree to disagree on this particular point, but keep up the good work on your review. COGDEN 07:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

References, notes and sources

• Overlinking of Notes and references. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) link only the first occurence unless the next is far away and only link the first reference.

There are some reference, note, source and citation problems. This will take some time to go through. Bare with me please as I write up specifics. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This is what I find in just the first 5 notes:

• Note 1 claims the church has nearly 14 million members worldwide and the first USA Today reference seems to support this claim alone. However the note: (LDS Church claims 13,508,509 members as of end of 2008); Is unsubstantiated. This needs to be referenced.

Updated and referenced. w7jkt ^talk 16:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The following note seems to be somewhat promotional and has no context to either the USA today reference or the unsubstantiated claim in notes. Community of Christ (2009), General Denominational Information, http://www.cofchrist.org/news/GeneralInfo.asp#membership, retrieved December 17, 2009 (second largest Latter Day Saint movement denomination claiming approximately 250,000 members). This is only one denomination. This simply does not relate to either claims.

Substantiate the LDS figure and lose the Community of Christ note.

• Note 2 does not substantiate the claim that the family was poor when Joseph was born. In fact it actually states that “..they soon knew ‘the embarrassment of poverty‘..“ (after paying $1800 in debt by selling the farm and using Lucy’s $1000 dowry) but that there circumstances had improved by his birth. It states “Joseph Taught school in Sharon in the winter and farmed in the summer and with him working two jobs, the family circumstances, as Lucy reported, “gradually improved.” She was feeling optimistic when another son, Joseph Smith Jr., arrived on December 23, 1805.” This is the reference and it is all found on a single page, 19. The note gives pages 9 through 30.

The claim must reflect the reference. It should say “The family knew poverty, but by the time of Joseph junior’s birth their circumstances had improved.” The reference needs to give the specific page which is 19.

I agree, and have removed the word poor. The Smith family fortunes fluctuated, and they would not always have been considered poor. COGDEN 22:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note 3 = The claim: “Crippled by a bone infection at age eight, the younger Smith hobbled on crutches as a child". Is not substantiated by Note 3 source: Biographical sketches of Joseph Smith the prophet: and his progenitors for ...By Lucy Smith. Pages 62-65. It’s only discusses the painful treatment he endured but says nothing about either being crippled or using crutches as a child. Either expand the claim or lose the reference entirely.

The reference from Bushman is on page 21. We do not need the rest. JUST page 21. Either fix the reference OR expand the claim to reflect the information found in the other pages.

Done. In addition, I've changed the current text which is incorrect. Smith hobbled on crutches after his surgery at age 8 until at least age 11 or 12, not before his surgery. COGDEN 22:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note 4 = The claim “ In 1816–17, the family moved to the western New York village of Palmyra and eventually took a mortgage on a 100-acre (40 ha) farm in nearby Manchester town.” is incorrect. The note only specifies page 30 of Bushman’s book, but is in fact 30-31 and is not the towns the claim makes. The books says the township of Farmington where they settled in Manchester village, which would become a township in 1822. This should reflect the facts as they are presented and as the timeline and chronology show. Adding that “this is what we know today as…“ and then placing the modern township and wikilink would work.

• Note 5 is misleading. There is nothing that states they were “Squatters”, but that they actually “raised” a log cabin on land nearby. To do such suggests not that they were squatters but simply allowed to do so by the land owner.

In reading the actual references against the prose I see clear OR and bias attempting to make the life sound worse than it really was.

Note 6 = I see no mention of the term "Second Great Awakening" in this reference. The use of the Peacock term "Hotbed" is unencyclopedic. The reference merely mentions "revivals" of such great regularity that the district became known as the "Burnt district". Yes, it is speaking of this period but did not do so outright. To use this as the reference to that statement is stretching. You would need the reference and source to say this in one way or another and it really doesnt.

References have a few problems as well:

• Dead link - pdf:Hill, Marvin S. (1976), "Joseph Smith and the 1826 Trial: New Evidence and New Difficulties" (PDF), BYU Studies 12 (2): 1–8, https://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/PDFSRC/12.2Hill.pdf .
• Dead link - pdf:Jessee, Dean (1976), "Joseph Knight's Recollection of Early Mormon History" (PDF), BYU Studies 17 (1): 35, https://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/PDFSRC/17.1Jessee.pdf .

In short

Notes have some big problems with bias and OR. They do not seem to be completely following the source and in some instances are showing they simply do not support claims at all. This is a serious problem for a Wikipedia article, let alone for GA. Formating is just not to standard with overlinking, dead links and unreferenced claims. Not every note has such problems but clearly need a good deal of attention by a disinterested editor to go through line by line and make much needed editing.

References on the other hand are not as bad but contain similar problems that must be corrected. I really think the overlinking is really bad. It confuses the reader and makes navigating the sources very difficult. If you have wikilinked the notes and the references as a means of guiding the reader to specifc articles it doesn't help with a list this long right next to external links to to e-books, many of which do not go to the specific page were the reference would be found. If the external link does not go directly to the reference, why bother? It's not a conveniance.

Non-collapsible tables

• Below the references and external links appear two tables that do not collapse and simply consist of either information that is also cointained in the nav bars or belong in "See Also" the need to be removed. If the information is relevent to the subject place the information in the body of the article. (unsigned by reviewer)

I've deleted these tables from the main article and moved them here for discussion:

Leaders of the Church of Christ, later called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Founding president	Leader Claiming Succession Position in the Church of Christ Title & denomination Years
Joseph Smith, Jr. (1830–1844)
	Brigham Young was President of the Quorum of the Twelve President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1844–1877
	Joseph Smith III was Direct Descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr. President of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints later called the Community of Christ 1860–1914
	James Strang was an Elder with aLetter of appointment President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) 1844–1856
	Sidney Rigdon was senior surviving member of the First Presidency Guardian of the Church of Christ later called the Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion or Rigdonites 1844–1847

Personally, I don't think they add anything to the article. The succession information is better written as prose, and can be found in the "Succession Crisis" article. Also, there is no consistent series of boxes used by Nauvoo mayors, most of whom don't have Wikipedia pages. COGDEN 08:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Prose

OK, "Hotbed" is repeated now in the lede. I don't remember seeing it there before. Its a Peacock term. I am also seeing a repeated usage of terms and descriptions that make the article less reliable to the source. For the most part the writing is not bad. But the lede now contains the same phrase found in the "Early years" section. I had mentioned this only in the reference and note section as it pertained to the misuse of the reference...but now it needs to be addressed on it's own.

Another problem with the prose that I'll mention here intead of the reference and notes review section is the over abundence of notes breaking up the sentences throughout the article. It makes it very difficult to read. It is particularly bad from the sections, "Life in Ohio (1831–38))" up to the section "Death".

Example:

Mob attacks began in July 1833,[116] but Smith advised the Mormons to patiently bear them[117] until a fourth attack, which would permit vengeance to be taken.[118] This just does not seem necessary.

Regarding WP:PEACOCK: I disagree. We aren't using "hotbed" to make it sound any "better" or "worse", we're just using it to describe the significant religious activity. We are allowed to use interesting words in order to achieve the WP ideal of brilliant prose.

Regarding mid-sentence citations, for the example given, I agree that [117] could wait until the end of the sentence, but the sentence consists of two separate thoughts, and I believe [116] should stay where it is, to make it clear which reference applies to which statement. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Farming and treasure hunting

During the next four years, Smith made annual visits to Cumorah...Meanwhile, Smith continued traveling western New York and Pennsylvania, being paid to search for precious metals...During one of these treasure quests, he met Emma Hale and, on January 18, 1827, eloped with her because her parents disapproved of the match.

I have a few thoughts regarding this section. I referred to Rough Stone Rolling pages 51-53 (through the Google books preview). Bushman states that "Work on the Stowell and Knight farms was not the only magnet drawing Joseph Smith back. While at home, he told his mother about Miss Emma Hale..." Bushman correlates his farm work to meeting and seeing Emma, while we state that he met her "during one of these treasure quests". The way our article currently phrases it, it makes it sound like Smith's work during this period consisted exclusively of treasure hunting. From what I understand, the treasure hunting was more of a side-venture compared to his farm work during those years. Also, it would probably be good to at least mention the Stowells by name. Our article seems to suggest that Smith performed treasure hunting for various employers, while Bushman seems to suggest he was almost always working with/for the Stowells. I can't really find anywhere that Bushman says he was paid directly for his treasure seeking, rather than, for example, getting a cut of the findings. The only suggestion that he was compensated is when Bushman states that "In 1825, when the family needed money, Joseph Jr. agreed to help Stowell find the spanish gold..."

On a different note, Bushman says that when Joseph asked for Emma's hand in marriage, her father Isaac Hale objected because Joseph was "a stranger, and followed a business that I could not approve", apparently referring to his treasure hunting. It might be good to mention this as Emma's parents' reason for "disapproving the match".

tl;dr - this section needs a few modifications in order to fit with the sources cited. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think if we cite Brodie, Vogel, and Quinn, rather than Bushman, there's no problem with that sentence. On the pages mentioned, Bushman's trying to put an apologetic spin on a discreditable (but undeniable) episode in Smith's life.--John Foxe (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd object to an LDS editor suggesting we filter what that editor perceived to be skeptical spin from Brodie or Quinn's works. Bushman's take on this time period is as valid and citable as any other expert's, and neutrality is not served by ignoring the creditable (and undeniable) bits of Smith's life. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Bushman's speculation that Stovall hired Smith as a farm laborer has no citation in RSR.--John Foxe (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

False. Page 52: "Joseph had continued working for Stowell after the abortive mining operation in November 1825, and during that time, besides working on the farm and going to school, Joseph may have helped look for lost mines again." (Emphasis mine.) alanyst ^/talk/ 19:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that line. But I assume that Bushman's uncited statement here refers to working on his own family's farm.--John Foxe (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be no evidence that Smith ever worked as a farmhand outside his family's farm except in his mother's remembrances, and she was very sensitive to the charge that the Smiths spent all their time engaging in the practice of folk magic.--John Foxe (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Bushman says Joseph was employed by Stowell and Knight Sr. doing farm work, and quoted both Lucy Mack Smith and Joseph Knight Jr. to that effect. You are not qualified to speculate on the authenticity of LMS's claims; Bushman the expert has already evaluated it and accepted it as history. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Bushman does not say that Smith worked for Knight, Sr. as a farmhand. The only evidence cited by Bushman that Smith was ever hired as farmhand comes from Lucy Mack Smith's remembrances many years later and after Joseph's death. I've not speculated on the accuracy of LMS's claims in the article; I've just mentioned the source of the belief that Smith ever worked as a hired farmhand.--John Foxe (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

We're interested in what the sources say; so if Bushman's spinning at this point, we need to get beyond him. The same would be true if the shoe were on the other foot.--John Foxe (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

To me the issue is determining if Joseph Smith's life, at this time, was focused on treasure hunting or was it a something else. If it was not treasure hunting what was his main method of gainful employment. That should be stated and the treasure hunting put into context. One thing the article does not make clear is that people sought out Joseph Smith for his treasure hunting; it was not a situation where Smith advertised his abilities and interested parties contacted him. -^StormRider 12:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's my opinion that treasure hunting was Joseph Smith's chief method of employment during this period. (He even got others to do the physical labor.) As for advertising, it was by necessity word-of-mouth because at the time the occupation was considered disreputable if not illegal.--John Foxe (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have Brodie, Quinn, or Vogel quotes supporting the assertion that "treasure hunting was Smith's chief method of employment during this period", then by all means add them to the article. If we don't have a source to support this, then it is original research and the article should be modified. Bushman doesn't really come out and say that farm work was his chief method of employment either, so we likewise can't say that without a scholar backing it up. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that Smith's chief employment was treasure hunting, so I don't know why that would need to be proved—in fact, I don't know how it could be proved. There's certainly a lot of testimony that as a young man Smith was away from home for long periods treasure hunting, often with his father. Is there any testimony that he was working outside the home doing farm chores?--John Foxe (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we can produce references that he worked for others doing farm work, clearing land, etc. This was a first and foremost a farming family. If his treasure hunting was word of mouth and he was so unsuccessful at it, exactly what were people saying to encourage others to use him? Word of mouth references only work if one is successful. If he actually was working full time as a treasure hunter, being unsuccessful, exactly how was he providing for his family? This does not make sense, but I don't recall any historian that has stated this was his main employment or answered any of these questions. I have heard critics claim he was a notoriously unsuccessful treasure hunter, but this makes no sense if others always sought him out for his ability to find things. There are too many contradictions here. -^StormRider 05:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Bushman page 47 says "In October, 1825, Joseph and his father took jobs digging in Pennsylvania for Josiah Stowell Sr." - thus placing Joseph in the manual labor position in a "treasure hunt." Then page 48 says "[in 1826] Josiah Stowell Sr. employed him to do farm chores and perhaps work in the mills...Joseph's experience in clearing the Smith farm made him a useful hand..." On page 48, Bushman also explains that the Smiths were to receive 2/11 of the gold/ore discovered, making no other mention of repayment. Bushman narrates that JSJr convinced Stowell to stop digging; it seems doubtful that the Smiths were profiting from this particular failed excursion. ...comments? ~BFizz 08:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I still believe treasure hunting was Smith's main occupation and that he did little to no manual labor even on those digs. The Bushman statement about farm chores lacks primary source backing beyond Lucy Mack Smith, and on the same page, Bushman says (on much better primary source evidence) that Stowell brought "Joseph all the way from Palmyra" because Stowell believed "he had located the site of an ancient Spanish mine where coins had been minted and buried." That the Smiths made little money out of the treasure hunting seems reasonable enough; the treasures kept sliding away before the diggers could get to them. The treasure hunting episodes were important to Smith's later success because he discovered that people's willingness to believe in buried treasure rendered inconsequential his lack of ability to find any. Stowell continued to believe in Joseph's gift at Joseph's trial.--John Foxe (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty meaningless to try to ascribe to Smith some "main occupation". Of course, since the Smith family owned a little bit of land, he probably did chores around the farm. But everybody who owned land in those days did the same, but they also had outside businesses. Who knows (and who cares?) how much time they allocated to home chores compared to the outside business? Smith's father was a merchant, and in Joseph Jr.'s earliest days, before he really built up his magic business, his outside job was to work at his father's pastry/beer shop in Palmyra village. I don't see this issue as important. Of course he probably did farm chores, and he also sold pastry, but his career in magic is most relevant for purposes of this article. It's important because without magic, there would be no seer stones, and without seer stones, there would be no Book of Mormon. COGDEN 13:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Alas, we now come to the real head of the issue. Foxe and COgden seek to portray Smith as having a "magic business" at the same time procleaming he was worthless at the task. Now tell me boys and girls, if you sold beer and pastries for a living by charging two bits for every beer, but never gave any beer, exactly how long do you have a business? Now I may be wrong, it would not be the first time, but what you two gents are proposing is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. NO ONE, as in zero, zilch, personne, pays someone and never receives any goods. Bushman, in Foxe's words, the ultimate in references, clearly states Smith implored others not to pursue treasure hunting. Yet, you two are proposing for doing nothing, not even helping to dig (I assume you meant the lazy slob would not even lift a hand) people still felt the need to hire him for everything from farming to the heretofore unheard of "magic business". Excuse me, I have to puke; this is just too rich for my taste. -^StormRider 16:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Unearned riches are a powerful draw, not in the same league as beer and pastries. Heard of Bernie Madoff?--John Foxe (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Storm, Joseph Smith was a very good and very profitable magician. He was certainly not "worthless" at magic. Smith said, himself, that he was able to make $14/month on magic jobs, which was very good money for that era. Magic was certainly much more profitable for him than any other jobs he could have been doing. Smith certainly did not do "nothing" on these digs. He was the seer, and thus crucially important for each of these ventures. COGDEN 22:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You and Foxe need to get your story straight. On the one hand he is worthless, and could not find anything and then on the other he was very successful "magician" (which is a term I have not even heard anti-Mormons use). As a treasure hunter did he find treasure? If he did not, why was he paid as much as $15/month. I don't recall hearing that his family benefitted from this fruitful employement, rather they remained a relatively poor farming family. BTW, Madoff ran a ponzi skeme where he paid off the older investors with the monies from new investors; he then proceeded to just outright lie to his investors. None of this was possible in Smith's day; he either wsa immediately successful or he wasn't. Hear of reality lately? None of these references jibe and there is far more conflict than reality. -^StormRider 05:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Smith's techniques of deception have been used by scammers of every sort, ancient and modern. Smith found nothing with his seer stone (except maybe a pin or two) yet he was believed anyway. That same personal magnetism came into play when he approached women and told them that God had told him....If it had been me, I would have been instantly pegged by the men as a fraud and liar, and women would have laughed me to scorn.--John Foxe (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, Bushman says he did not have any "personal magnetism". Many first-time impressions was that he was a rather crude, uneducated person; not a good speaker; an ordinary fellow. On the other hand, you have others who were struck with the the presence of the Holy Spirit when they heard what he said when discussion spiritual matters.

Critics have tried to claim, without any evidence except personal deduction (i.e. they can't find another reason how he could have led so many educated people), that Smith was this overpowering personality. The truth was that he did not have such a personality.

Then we have the canard that somehow the whole state was employing him to find treasure, for which he never found anything, but "maybe a pin or two". This is what makes most thinking people stare with incredulity of critics. He was totally worthless at treasure hunting, but everyone threw money at him to help them find treasure. Can you say, "Some one is not telling the truth?" Either he was successful finding treasure or the story that he could make $15 a month is a farce, that Smith seldom was hired or at least few people chose to hire him. What is the right story? It seems like there is a lot of fish stories going on and none of it makes any sense; even a child can see someone is desperately trying to present a story that has no part in reality. -12:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that we vaguely imagine other people to be like ourselves, even though logically we realize that other folks have different abilities, some of which may be honed to spectacular proficiency. The fact that I couldn't play bassoon in a symphony orchestra, catch a game-winning pass in the NFL, or win fifty separate chess games blindfolded doesn't mean others couldn't. Like Mark Hofmann, Joseph Smith had unusual gifts and the ability to inspire confidence in others. I once worked for a fellow who was extremely persuasive and whose business went bankrupt while I was working for him. Yet I told my friends that if he came up with another proposition, I'd work for him again. He was that good.--John Foxe (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to fall victim to viewing history through the anachronistic eyes of a modern observer. If you put yourselves in the shoes of a middle-class New Englander in the 1820s, the measure of Joseph Smith's success as a magician is whether or not he was able--in the eyes of those who hired him--to at least temporarily remove the enchantments, or bypass the spirits, that protect buried treasure. By that standard, Smith was very successful. Smith was hired to show them where the treasure was buried and break the enchantment, and it was their fault that they failed to follow the proper magical protocols which resulted in the treasure slipping away from their grasp. Smith was providing a magical service, and was very good at providing that service, which is why he got repeat business. Saying that Smith was successful, despite no proof that would satisfy a rational modern mind, is no different from saying that a Catholic priest is successful in transmuting the wafer and wine into the body and blood of Christ, or saying that an exorcist is successful in casting out demons, or that a Wiccan is successful in casting a spell, or that an early Christian was successful in speaking in tongues, or in bringing a curse upon a city by casting the dust off their feet. You have to judge success through the eyes of those who believe the magic, and put aside the rational proof that would be required by jaded modern eyes. COGDEN 20:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that when discussing the Catholic priest no one places it in a context of magic. More importantly, no one on Wikipedia would allow you that liberty. Not even Foxe's university would allow such talk about their founder. Why is it acceptable when discussing Mormonism? -09:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Smith's employers

In the Bushman text I've read about Smith being employed by two men for treasure seeking

1. Josiah Stowell Sr.
2. Joseph Knight Sr (or Jr?)

Foxe insists that Smith performed treasure-seeking, hired by various employers. Can someone please quote some authoritative sources to back that up? ...comments? ~BFizz 01:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A good place to start is Quinn, 53-59, which is already cited in the relevant note in the article. According to Quinn, Smith was treasure hunting in Harmony, PA in 1822, working with the diggers of Oliver Harper. After leaving Stowell, Smith continued treasure hunting in Chenango and Broome counties until arrested in 1826. A neighbor of Smith's, Samantha Payne, said that "for a period of about seven years," Smith "was more or less of the time engaged in digging for money—that he so dug upon many of the farms in the neighborhood," this recollection being supported by other neighbors. Apparently, two residents of Manchester, David and Abram Fish, provided financial support for Smith to dig in the Manchester area.--John Foxe (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Vogel, Dan (1994), "The Locations of Joseph Smith's Early Treasure Quests" (PDF), Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 27 (3): 197–231 for the most detailed analysis of Smith's treasure quests. Also, see Quinn, 1998, pp. 58-59, listing Smith's treasure quest employers as including David and Abram Fish (Palmyra/Manchester area), Oliver Harper (Susquehanna area), Josiah Stowell (Susquehanna area), and Jacob Chamberlain (Junius/Waterloo area). COGDEN 12:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Did Joseph Smith ever work as a hired farmhand?

I find this edit of John Foxe's to be argumentative and a misrepresentation of the sources; see Bushman pp. 47-53. Since he and I seem to be at an impasse, and I don't want to cross the line into edit warring, will other editors besides us please opine whether the edit is appropriate or not? Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 22:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to admit my error if anyone can find a citation (other than to Lucy Mack Smith) that says that Joseph Smith ever worked as a hired farmhand.--John Foxe (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

From Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith by Newell and Avery, page 17: "When Josiah Stowell abandoned the digging enterprise, Emma did not have to say good-bye to Joseph, for Stowell hired him as a farmhand and to cut timber." See endnote 29 of that source, citing a letter from Marietta Colwell to Wilford C. Wood. Also note that Googling for "best hand he ever hired" (the Joseph Knight Jr. phrase) gives a number of sources for that statement, the primary source for which is given in a 1978 Ensign article as follows: Joseph Knight, Jr., “Joseph Knight’s [Jr.] Incidents of History from 1827 to 1844,” compiled by Thomas Bullock from loose sheets in Joseph Knight’s possession, Church Archives, 16 Aug. 1862, p. 1. alanyst ^/talk/ 00:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Bushman says Smith "possibly labored in Joseph Knight Sr.'s carding mills," (52) not as a farmhand. And the letter from Marietta Colwell to Wilford C. Wood you've cited as evidence was written in 1946! I repeat, I'll be happy to admit my error if anyone can find a citation (other than to Lucy Mack Smith) that says that Joseph Smith ever worked as a hired farmhand.--John Foxe (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have given you citations to academically sound, widely respected secondary sources that are treating it as a fact that he did farm work outside his family. This is getting tiresome and you are in breach of 3RR. alanyst ^/talk/ 01:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked we were using Bushman extensively as an authoritative secondary source. Just because Bushman hasn't convinced you, Foxe, doesn't mean we should discount his statements. The edit in question inserts original research - what reliable source has stated that this is the only evidence? ...comments? ~BFizz 01:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't discount Bushman. I only noted that there's no primary source evidence that Joseph Smith ever worked as a hired farmhand beyond the late testimony of his mother, who was concerned that the Smith family not be portrayed as having wasted their time practicing magic. Wikipedia rules permit you to proceed as you've done. But I hold the high moral ground.--John Foxe (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Instead of debating over very obscure detail, why don't we change "farmhand" to "laborer" and just cite both Bushman and Newell/Avery? COGDEN 11:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense Foxe; you have accused the whole family of playing with "magic" their entire lives. Now you want to accuse them of being concerned about their public image and playing with magic? Foxe, you are making me worry. Have you by chance ever studied logic or even undstood its definition? You are way out in your position and it is wholly lacking in any degree of logic. -^StormRider 12:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The explanation is a common one in understanding history: change over time. The magic world view of early Mormonism worked well during the first years of the Church. Eber Howe's Mormonism Unvailed (1834) published affidavits by Palmyra residents describing the activities of the Smith family in the occult and folk magic, and none of the Smiths ever denied their truth. But in 1854, after the deaths of her husband and son, Lucy Mack Smith wanted it understood that family's participation in folk magic did not mean her family had neglected its farm work.--John Foxe (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

COgden, you are the first person who claims to be neutral to cite Eber Howe's book as legitimate history rather than the preposterous screed all historians claim it to be. It is similar to asking the KKK about the positive traits of the black race. The Church never, ever claimed to have a magic world view. The only thing the Church ever claimed was that God was all-powerful and active in daily life. Further, Smith made it clear that all mankind might know God through the work of the Holy Spirit. There is such a thing as history and then there is twisting history to meet one's personal agenda. History may not be a field for you because it first demands neutrality and you have completely lost that ability when it comes to this topic. I suggest you seek Ed Decker's shop for employment. -^StormRider 09:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

(I'm sure you meant to condemn me rather than the long-suffering COGDEN)--John Foxe (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ouch, Stormrider. I agree it is poor form to cite Howe. But to accuse someone of work parallel to that of Ed Decker seems a little harsh. Brodie perhaps, but Decker? My favorite trivia about Decker is that "one of his associates offered to exorcise the Tanners' demons, and expressed great sadness when they refused" because of the Tanners' accusation that his writings weren't as subtle as theirs in leading LDS members from their religion. Such fun watching the dogs barking at the caravan turn on each other.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Stormrider, I never said that Howe's work was neutral or unbiased. It is what it is, which is an anti-Mormon esposé. However, it contains some primary source material which has objective indicia of historical reliability (such as corroborations, etc.), and is therefore considered by academia to be reasonably reliable. It is a fringe view, even among Mormon apologetic scholars now, to suggest that Joseph Smith never practiced magic. Not even Joseph Smith himself made that claim. COGDEN 18:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me the merits of COgden's position. I believe he is suggesting that even though the author of a history is clearly biased and therefore unreliable, his writing is relevant because it contains some accurate sources. My position would be to throw out the author's work. If there is an accurate reference or item in the writing source it independently. Otherwise the item itself can be seen as less reliable by association. It may take a little more work, but if the jobs worth doing, isn't it worth doing right? 173.180.123.61 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

COgden, I know the history of Joseph Smith relatively well. He used stones to seek for treasure. However, how that topic is discussed is important. We do not discuss Catholic exorcisms as using magic; we do not discuss wearing metal crosses as wearing magical amulets of protection; we do not discuss faith-healers as mystical healers. The reason why we don't is first and foremost an effort to provide a neutral context tot he readers. This topic should be treated just as we treat all topics of religion.

I strongly reject any attempt to use a different standard for Joseph Smith or Mormonism in general. Why are you proposing it should be different? On what grounds does it merit this difference? -^StormRider 06:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Stormrider.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Canadiandy, it's irrelevant whether a particular source is biased. The standard is whether it is reliable. Stormrider, if what you are seeking is a euphemism for the word folk magic in this article, what is your proposed euphemism, and how do you suggest that using this euphemism passes the test of WP:NPOV? COGDEN 18:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The easiest way is not to label it; just state what he did. We don't label Catholic exorcism as a magical rite; it is just described for what it does. We say they wear a cross and not a magic amulet to ward off evil spirits. We don't describe Oral Roberts as a mystic shaman that traversed the US doing healings. Why the double standard? Treat this topic like we treat others; there is no need to use the language of anti-Mormonism just because it is sensational. Their terminology should just be ignored.-^StormRider 06:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Storm, the word "magic" is only used twice in the article text (in the form of "folk magic"). I think you are seeing a problem that isn't there. When we refer to Smith's exorcism in Colesville, we don't use the word magic because the term exorcism is a more specific term for one particular magic practice; and besides, there is a significant faction of deluded mainstream scholars who don't think that exorcism is a form of magic. But when referring to the combination of crystal gazing, astrology, spell casting, dowsing, necromancy, use of talismans, etc. There's no better, more accurate, or more neutral word than folk magic, and there are a lot more controversial and less-accurate words we could use, such as occult or witchcraft. COGDEN 03:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Emma was "Doubly Troublesome?"

The article reads;

[Emma's]strong opposition to plural marriage "made her doubly troublesome."[426]

Was this a direct quote from a church member? The reference only links to Bushman. Is this Bushman's own interpretation or if he is quoting another individual? Can we have the original source please? As it reads now it seems to connect this quote to the Church leadership, where in reality it may actually be Emma's personal narrative.

Even with the source, the way this is presented is biased in at least two ways. It either suggests that the Church was disrespectful of Emma as an individual, or to the other extreme that Emma's opposition of polygamy was wrong. And I don't buy the argument that since it is biased in both extremes it is somehow balanced.

What's wrong with stating that Emma felt the leadership of the Church were disappointed/frustrated with her position. If this is actually the case according to a reliable source.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I have no problem whatsoever with Bushman's quote, regardless if it is his own take on things or based on a primary source. Emma didn't fit conveniently into the Brigham Young world view, and this is something interesting to point out. If anything, it shows some respect for her to make sure the point is made, and Bushman's quote was a dynamic one to grab. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The "doubly troublesome" quotation is Bushman's, so it is indeed a "direct quote from a church member."--John Foxe (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How's this? ...comments? ~BFizz 03:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Are we allowed to remove cited quotations because an editor has 'concerns' ? If so, let me know because I have more than a few 'concerns' about a few quotes. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the quote with a statement that said the same thing but in a way that fit the context better. The Bushman quote supports the wording that I used; do you disagree, Duke? If you have actual concerns about clarity or neutrality, feel free to bring them up. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the actual quote rather than your interpretation of what was said. If we are allowed to do what you just did, give me the word and I will make some changes to the quotes that 'concern' me. Cheers. 05:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

For many years post-Nauvoo, Emma was 'doubly troublesome' to the LDS leadership. Not only did she reject polygamy, with her public statements challenging the credibility of S.132, her rejection of Young and the Twelve didn't fit nicely into the narrative. Why is Bushman's quote not appropriate where it sits? Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Because where it sits it is confusing as to whether it is the words of Brigham Young, Emma Smith, some early church leader or the historian Bushman. Canadiandy1 (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

The wording "doubly troublesome" was clearer in its original context, where Bushman was talking about Emma's relationship with the church. I simply lifted the core idea of the quote into the context we were using it. I see no compelling reason to parrot Bushman's words here. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the history. I agree about not parroting Bushman, the article is not about him. I also wonder what evidence Bushman might have had that church leaders' opinions of Emma personally were negative. Without supporting evidence, better terminology would look like;

'Emma's actions caused them concern,' or, 'the leaders were frustrated by her actions.'

Perhaps Bushman finds Emma troublesome, but I see no evidence that the eternal companion of the Church's most revered prophet was ever considered personally without courtesy or dignity by the early leaders. Remember, there is a big difference in how one feels about an individual's actions, and how they might feel about the actual individual. Lets focus on what is known, not what is speculated. The article is already long enough.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

If you look at it in the context of Bushman's book, the phrase's meaning is quite clear, flowing logically from the previous sentences. It loses clarity when the snippet is copied verbatim into our article. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(responding to this edit summary) Duke, out any of my comments above, can you please tell me where I have given "personal reasons"? I'm pretty sure I gave editorial reasons for this. What you call "my interpretation" is a very obvious derivation of Bushman's words. Please stop wikilawyering under the false mantra of protecting sourced quotations. There's no policy that says we should prefer direct quotes over clearer wording. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• One of your edit summaries said that you were doing it because of another editor's 'concern's; now you've changed tack, but you are edit warring. It's tough to hit a moving target. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, one edit summary, coincidentally the first of mine relating to this issue. I was referring to Canadiandy's concerns at the beginning of this section, which are about the clarity of the wording chosen; Canadiandy noted that the wording may lead readers to incorrect interpretations of the facts we are trying to present. So I changed the quote into clearer wording. I don't know how to make my argument any more consistent than it is in this case. My edits and comments, every time in this conversation, have been about clearer wording. I won't attempt to impose this wording again, though. I'll rely on other editors to restore my proposed wording if they agree with me. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• "clear wording. clear wording. clear wording. I've said or implied this every time, Duke.

• "Yes, one edit summary, coincidentally the first of mine relating to this issue". Every time, huh ? make up your mind: every time does NOT mean every time but the rather important 'first' one ... you've proved my point for me. Thank You. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Said or implied." That first time was the "implied". I expected it to be an obvious and uncontroversial change. I've since made my thought process more explicit. Now can we get back to discussion of content, please? Perhaps you'd like to explain why you feel "my interpretation" is not an adequate derivation of Bushman's words. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you examine Bushman's text, this is obviously a quantification based on a previous statement which is lacking in our prose here. The change is necessary and it makes sense. What is the argument here? Regards, Firinne ^talk 17:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The way it reads now (Her strong opposition to plural marriage further complicated her relationship with the church) is much, much better. Thanks, all. The facts remain in the text but are now written in a more neutral and clear manner.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Bushman is the historian and his book is the secondary source. I sincerely question why his characterization of Emma as being 'doubly troublesome' isn't clear & correct. It is. She was. Just as her two sons were who went on missions to Utah during the 1850s. If someone is going to edit out Bushman's appropriate term, then it must be clear she created a problem for the westward-trekking leadership for both reasons: rejection of their polygamy (not only her public denials of her husband's involvement) and rejection of them as church leaders. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

ASniper, I will give you that Emma's positions/rejections created problems for the leadership. But the term 'troublesome' is loaded and I disagree that Emma was 'troublesome.' Her actions created troubles for leadership, perhaps. But labeling Emma in such a way is like calling one's child 'bad.' The social standard recommends labeling the action and not the child.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

What do we think about this? At least it flows better, I think. Regards, Firinne ^talk 15:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a step in the right direction; this edit makes it clearer to whom Emma was "troublesome". ...comments? ~BFizz 16:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with Firinne's edit. Good job. As for Canadiandy, whether or not it is loaded, it is still a bona fide quote from Bushman. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Emma Hale Smith caption

I feel that the information contained in the caption of Emma Hale Smith does not belong there. I'm not suggesting that we remove the text entirely, just that we move it into that section. As it stands, the image does not follow consistency with the rest of the article's images. What does everyone else think? Thanks, w7jkt ^talk 19:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This caption been extensively debated in the past, and it supplies important information to the reader. Having this information with the picture means that many more people will read and learn from it. Frankly, if consistency's the goal, it would be better if the other images in the article had such descriptive captions.--John Foxe (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the current caption, but I also believe that a simpler caption would be fine. The problem is, it's just odd to say "Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith" without also saying something about Joseph's polygamy. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Foxe. Some of us worked for awhile on that caption before the usual, respected editors of the time were happy all 'round. Best, User:A Sniper 02:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for bringing up a previously debated issue (which I couldn't find in the archives for some reason), but regardless I think that my previous statement still applies. I think that, as John said, if we won't change the text of that caption, we should at least adjust the others in the article for consistency. And this might have been asked already, but why is that particular statement of such importance that it needs to be in the caption? Isn't the section about Joseph's family, not his polygamy? Thanks, w7jkt ^talk 18:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Polygamy is certainly a family matter.--John Foxe (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Stating "Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith" is correct, but neglects to mention that he had other "wives", for some definition of "wives". ...comments? ~BFizz 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly OK with mentioning other "wives", but "Portrait of Emma Hale Smith, who like her husband, always publicly denied Smith's polygamy" seems somewhat disjointed to me. Could we not say something like, "Emma Hale Smith, first wife of Joseph Smith." or something to that extent? I don't particularly like it but it seems more focused than the other. Thanks, w7jkt ^talk 13:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

One problem with "first wife" is that it suggests that Emma Smith died. Besides, I think it important to mention that Emma always publicly denied that her husband had practiced polygamy, and that information gets read much more often in the image caption. If it's just the sentence structure you don't like, that could be reworded as. "Portrait of Emma Hale Smith. Like her husband, she always denied that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy."--John Foxe (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt that you view that statement important. I contend, however, that "first wife" does not suggest that Emma died, it suggests more than one wife. It's blatantly obvious when taken in context. But it still remains that if the caption remains a statement contained within the section, then the other captions must be changed as well for consistency. Thanks, w7jkt ^talk 19:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John. I recall that this was a lot of back & forth to get it the way it is now, what with competing voices and views. I know my own unique perspective as an editor was respected by editors as diverse as you and Storm Rider. In any case, I do hope that we can keep the caption as is, with the refs intact. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it has been previously discussed, it is not consistent and, I think, just does not flow. Why should it matter if editors have agreed upon it in the past? While I respect the contributions of editors much more experienced than myself, things change, articles evolve and there are changes that need to be made in order to make a better article. Thanks, w7jkt ^talk 13:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So what's your suggestion as to how the caption should read?--John Foxe (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I made my suggestion earlier: "Emma Hale Smith, first wife of Joseph Smith." which I think is appropriate. If you strongly disagree can we meet in the middle somewhere? The caption's primary purpose is to describe the image depicted, is it not? w7jkt ^talk 16:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Did Joseph Smith have more than one wife?--John Foxe (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you getting at? You're skirting the issue. w7jkt ^talk 18:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Skirting" the issue? ;)--John Foxe (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah... What is your suggestion then? w7jkt ^talk 14:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Emma Smith, first of the many wives of the polygamist Joseph Smith. Works for me, short & sweet. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you, W7jkt. It seems in poor taste that the summation of Emma Smith's legacy is her stand on Polygamy. This is the lady who was the mother of all of Joseph's children (despite conflicting records no DNA evidence has ever proven otherwise). She stood by him through all of his persecutions, lost multiple children in childbirth, adopted and raised others with Joseph, endured Joseph's murder, stayed behind when the Saints left for the West; and all we see when scanning the article is about her position on polygamy. I'm sorry I wasn't involved in any previous discussion. No offense to those who debated this one previously but I agree with W7jkt that the caption read simply;

"Emma Hale Smith, first wife of Joseph Smith."

Even more dignified for the descendants of Joseph would be,

"Emma Hale Smith, wife of Joseph Smith."

But I'm sure we'd never get away with that one.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Thank you for your suggestion, Duke. One of the problems with that statement is that we need to qualify "many" in this instance. Since there has been many suppositions as to just how many wives Joseph did have and whether or not they were legitimately his wives, that creates an issue. We could remove the word many for a start. Regards, w7jkt ^talk 18:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Emma Smith, first of the many at least 33 wives of polygamist Joseph Smith. Still short & sweet. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now don't be cheeky. You know that even that number is disputed. There can be no definite number as we are lacking in documentation and reliable sources. How about: Emma Hale Smith, first of the wives of Joseph Smith. No need to mention "polygamist" at that point because it is implied. Regards, w7jkt ^talk 19:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

•"You know that even that number is disputed" That's why I added the qualifier 'at least'; I will use Todd Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives Of Joseph Smith as my source, thank you very much. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

•p.s. Your snide comment about me being 'cheeky' isn't appreciated or helpful. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lumping Emma with Smith's other polygamous wives is just as bad as ignoring the polygamous wives. Something along these lines would be more accurate: "Emma Hale married Joseph Smith in 1827. To Emma's dismay, Joseph later practiced polygamy in the 1840s." ...comments? ~BFizz 21:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If the image were to be found in a section on 'plural marriage' it might be seen as potentially appropriate. However the section is on 'Family and Descendants'. It is not reliably proven that Joseph had any children outside his marriage to Emma. So it simply looks like muckraking to highlight Emma's position on polygamy so prevalently while downplaying the amazingly challenging and compassionate work she performed in raising her several children through such challenging circumstances. You can argue this is a LDS sentiment, but I don't believe respect for the dignity of the role of mothers is exclusive to Mormonism. And as long as mindless academia trumps dignity, we're going to keep having problems with this article.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

...or we could simply allow what is there to stand. Do what you want to other photo captions but this one took a lot of tweaking and I've watched & waited until somebody would want to enter that arena again...and here we are. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've dug up the old conversation in the archives for everyone's reference: Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr./Archive_14#Joseph_Smith.27s_wives-a_controversy_between_John_Foxe_and_A_Sniper ...comments? ~BFizz 23:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)\

Thanks for looking that up, Fizz. I did recall that what ended up there was after input from me, Foxe and COgden. At least it shows that the words were chosen carefully, and, actually, it was Foxe who came up with it and I inserted it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoa. I have reviewed the past discussion on the subject. Nowhere in that discussion was W7jkt's point "...the information contained in the caption of the Emma Hale Smith does not belong there. I'm not suggesting that we remove the text entirely, just that we move it into that section. As it stands, the image does not follow."

raised significantly. His point is not about the text itself, but its location in the caption box. This is a new point which deserves to be discussed. What's the rush?

Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Despite lack of consensus, I've made an edit to the caption. There are two reasons I feel this version is better:

• References don't really belong in captions
• I've given years so the reader can quickly understand Emma was different than Joseph's other polygamous wives.

I've preserved the notion that Emma denied Smith's polygamy, though I've not used the phrase "always publicly denied", which I'm not sure any historian has asserted (we don't cite any). ...comments? ~BFizz 16:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Upon inspection, the Church History reference seems to be completely irrelevant to the point. Assuming "Church History" means "History of the Church", see History of the Church v. 3 pp 356-357. Perhaps a different edition was being cited? ...comments? ~BFizz 16:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

BFizz, thanks very much for that change. I feel that it is one that probably most of us will agree upon. I, for one, think it is brilliant. And as for Duke, I apologise if my remark came across as snide, and, upon reflection, I'm not sure if it could have come across as anything but. I am sorry, I didn't mean it. Regards, Firinne ^talk 17:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

BFizz, I greatly appreciate the improvements you have been able to make here thanks to your time and contributions. My concern is not that the wording is not a huge improvement, but whether it belongs there at all. The same information should be held within the text, so that Emma's entire life is not summed up according to her position on polygamy. What would be so horrible if the caption read something like;

"Married to Joseph in January 1827, Emma was the mother of seven natural and two adopted children."

The information on her position on polygamy could then be placed in the section's second paragraph where it seems to fit naturally.

This woman, love her or hate her, raised 9 children through incredibly trying circumstances. How is this trumped by her position on polygamy and the dispute that she did or didn't know Joseph was "married" again in a literal or dynastic way. Replacing a clear family reality with a speculative, debated, and critical item makes no sense.

I have no more to say on the wording, but I want to voice my opinion that the debate on the location of the caption's text is far from closed.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

It's important to state that Emma, as well as Joseph, denied that Joseph practiced plural marriage because that information helps draw the reader into this section of material. Emma's refusal to publicly admit the truth about her husband's polygamy provides significant insight into her moral and spiritual character.--John Foxe (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe,

I'm going to drop this one. It seems that there is too much appetite for branding Emma as a liar. Maybe we can deal with it later when things have cooled down a little. But I will repeat that it is not 'that' it is stated, but 'where' it is stated. And does it really matter whether the article calls her a liar first and then informs us she had several children, or instead refers to her as a mother and then calls her a liar? Either way your opinion is validated.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Most women have children, many have several. Few women have husbands who practice polygamy, know about the practice, and then deny it.--John Foxe (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, most women have children. And all people die. Just because it is common (and was inevitable) does that mean we stop putting up headstones? Judging from what I read on headstones we usually honor deceased individuals by recognizing their family connections as their primary accomplishment, regardless of what they are popular for.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

This is an encyclopedia article, not an obituary or a tombstone.--John Foxe (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have two questions about Foxe's modifications, and one objection:

• Why is it important to say Emma "publicly" denied Joseph's polygamy?
• Why is it important in the caption of Emma's portrait to say Joseph also denied his polygamy?
• By changing the sentence, it's unclear whether the polygamy or the denials were "during the 1840s".

...comments? ~BFizz 21:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Another objection I have is that Foxe's change makes it less clear that Smith did, in fact, practice polygamy. The version prior made it quite plain. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's important to say that Emma "publicly" denied Joseph's polygamy because we have pretty good evidence that she (mistakenly) thought she could control his sexual behavior by selecting appropriate partners for him.
• It's important to say that Joseph denied his polygamy because this article is about Joseph. (It wouldn't necessarily be appropriate in Emma Smith's article.)
• Both the polygamy and the denials largely occurred in the 1840s.
• An argument could be made that Joseph was not practicing polygamy but fornication.--John Foxe (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with, but can live with, #2 and #3. Regarding #1...what? First of all, that is a complete non sequeter, perhaps you left out a few logical steps in-between that would lead from one point to the other, but I don't see what "Emma controlling Smith" has to do with the addition of the word "publicly". Second of all...what "good evidence" do we have of that? That position is extremely speculative. Regarding #4, in most peoples' value systems, the two are equivalent. It is still a terrible reason for not asserting that Smith practiced polygamy in clear terms in this caption. The whole reason we agree that the caption "Emma Hale Smith, wife of Joseph Smith" is insufficient is because it fails to mention Smith's polygamy. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped the "publicly" and tweaked the wording to get the date up front. I think Utah elders of the late nineteenth century would be horrified to have a religious descendant willing to equate plural marriage with serial infidelity.--John Foxe (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What I understand from your comments, John, is that your sole purpose in editing is to establish your particular (and that of most anti-Mormons) POV that Joseph Smith had gone off the deep end and was a sexual deviant. It's clear that you will use whatever "sources" necessary in order to establish that. You're grasping at straws here. Whether or not you think an argument could be made about Joseph Smith being a fornicator has no relevance to this caption. We are willing to meet halfway by keeping the polygamy statement in the caption because it draws readers into the section, but your interjection of irrelevant information into the caption is just illogical. Firinne ^talk 11:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem with what's there right now: "Emma Hale Smith married Joseph Smith in 1827. During the 1840s, both Joseph and Emma denied that Joseph was practicing polygamy"?--John Foxe (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I still think that a sentence structure like "Though Emma denied it, her husband practiced polygamy in the 1840s" sentence structure would be slightly better. However, I do think Foxe's recent change was a step in the right direction and I'm willing to let it rest there. ...comments? ~BFizz 13:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can live with it, so can I.--John Foxe (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Emma Hale Smith married Joseph Smith in 1827. During the 1840s, both Joseph and Emma denied that Joseph was practicing polygamy". This one gets my 'vote'. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering I raised the objection to any edits made to what Foxe wrote a year ago, this new edit works for me. However, if we find denials by both parties from earlier than 1840, can we just drop the decade entirely? Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Tweak: "Emma Hale Smith married Joseph Smith in 1827. While they were married, both Joseph and Emma denied that Joseph was practicing polygamy" Duke53 | ^Talk 20:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason I added the decade in the first place was to put Emma in context: she was Joseph's only wife for ~13 years, and then Joseph practiced polygamy for ~5 years before his death. Any of the recent revisions or proposals are good enough for me, though. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not particularly happy with it, but I'm willing to concede this one. It will do. I do, however, agree with BFizz about showing that Emma and Joseph were married for 13 years before the polygamy began. It seems appropriate to me. Regards, Firinne ^talk 17:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking that position would make Smith's involvement with Fanny Alger in the 1830s simple fornication.--John Foxe (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Guys, let's not even go there. I'm hoping the wording now is by consensus and should be supported by the various viewpoints represented here, mine included. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just my word to the unwary about how an apparently simple statement can produce unforeseen controversy.--John Foxe (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Taking that position would make Smith's involvement with Fanny Alger in the 1830s simple fornication". That is spot on. I suppose that Smith could / should also be labeled as an adulterer; is there a classification (or category) available for that at WP (to be placed at the top of the article page) ? Incidentally, that would also make Emma a cuckquean. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH would not permit you to do that, nor would WP:NPOV. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

[discussion regarding adultery moved to new section]

Changed back to 'restorationist'

I believe it was COgden who made a change I never saw discussed in which the article now refers to the church Joseph Smith founded as a 'primitivist' church. While Joseph Smith did identify the church as a reflection of the 'primitive Christian church' his word usage in context referred to the original church organized by Christ and did not mean any discredit (why would he discredit the church he was patterning [his] work after?). The term 'primitivist' in our modern context however seems to reflect backwards thinking or even old-fashioned. Clearly, the term 'restorationist' is more reflective of his aim, more clear, and more courteous to those of the Latter Day Saint movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Christian Restorationism has a completely irrelevant meaning. Also, there are many types of "restorationism," but the term Christian primitivism is a specific type of restorationism, and is most descriptive of the type shared by early Mormonism and related groups such as the Disciples of Christ. The term "primitivist" in this context has nothing to do with "backward thinking." It is a widely-used term used by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars. (See, e.g., references to the term on Google Scholar, etc.) COGDEN 12:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Restoration" is certainly a common thing for a Mormon to say when describing Smith's establishment of the Church of Christ. I suppose that "Christian Restorationism" shouldn't be used, though I often suggest "restorationist Christian", in this case I think we could simply replace the phrase "a Christian primitivist church" with a description of what that means. For example, "he organized a church named the Church of Christ, calling it a restoration of the church established by Jesus Christ." ...comments? ~BFizz 04:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Perfect, BFizz! COgden. I see your point in phrasing, and I don't like the idea of dumbing down the article, but I think it is important to point out that most readers of the article will not be familiar with the phraseology often used here. While the term 'primitivist' may be accurate, my vote is for terminology more common to the majority of readers.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

While Mormons use the term restoration, very few of them use the term restorationist or know what it means, any more than they know what Christian primitivism means. But the latter is a more specific term. Why use vegetable when you can use carrot? COGDEN 11:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The point isn't whether Mormons understand the term, but whether common readers do. Why use the term 'pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis' when 'lung disease' will do?

173.180.123.61 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

The problem is, if you say restorationism, nobody knows what you are talking about. You could mean Christian Restorationism, the Restoration Movement, universal reconciliation, or Christian primitivism. The best way to make sure that the common reader understands which of these things you are talking about is to use the most specific term. COGDEN 05:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, COgden. The best solution is what BFizz suggests;

"He organized a church named the Church of Christ, calling it a restoration of the church established by Jesus Christ."

What problem do you have with his wording?

173.180.123.61 (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

The issue is that, independently of merely saying that Smith believed in a restoration, it's important to categorize early Mormonism as a form of Christian primitivism, which places it in the same category as the Disciples of Christ, and might prompt the reader to look at the Christian primitivism article. When given a choice between using the most specific, correct, and standard word for the purpose at hand, and an awkward and unnecessarily euphemistic phrasing, the former is always the best choice. COGDEN 19:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Are we wording this just so we can advertise for the "Disciples of Christ" page? Let's call this what it is, and not what it is like. I understand if there is a link from Christian primitivism back to this article if this fits that definition, but I don't see the need to try and jam this peg into a hole on another pegboard. The peg might even fit, but what's the need? Let's stop defining other people's religions by what we think they are or aren't like. You say, "...it's important to categorize early Mormonism as a form of Christian primitivism." I think it's important to stop categorizing religions, and to start respecting them for their individual beliefs and values.

But if it's simply about being wordy or increasing the mere number of links to other pages, then I have no further improvements to suggest.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I was mildly irritated to find this nugget entirely edited out. But I'm tired of the heavy hitters overriding me, so I'm not going to debate it further. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, thought you'd be pleased that the term "Christian primitivist" was removed. It was meant as a compromise. I don't think the lede really needs to discuss the Christian primitivist background, but on the other hand, I think it's even less necessary to include a wordy definition of what Christian primitivism means. Maybe we're better off leaving the complications of Smith's doctrinal teachings to the main body of the article. COGDEN 03:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about it, but I suppose you're right; we can leave the details to the body. One thing I found odd about your edit was that it says Smith "organized branches of the 'Church of Christ". I'm not sure the meaning will be clear to non-LDS readers, and the important thing to note is that Smith spearheaded the procedure of legally and "officially" organizing the church as its "founder". ...comments? ~BFizz 04:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The term branch there just simply means branch in the normal sense of that word, as the term branch did not yet exist as Mormon jargon. Actually, Smith called them "three churches," but that's a little confusing because they were in a sense three "churches," but they were also supposed to be part of the timeless and anti-sectarian Church of Christ described in the Book of Mormon--a church for which organization was not actually necessary from a religious perspective because it was timeless. Also, I'd rather not mention the issue of whether the Chruch of Christ was "legally" organized. Nobody has located any documents of incorporation, and therefore nobody knows if it was officially incorporated under New York law, but that's a side-issue in my opinion, more appropriate for discussion in the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) article. COGDEN 11:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith and adultery

[originally a continuation of the "Emma Hale Smith caption" talk section above.]

Mr. Foxe, I am finding quite a few sources concerning Smith's adultery and fornication; when I get them sorted I feel that this should be mentioned by name in this article. ...comments ?

An example:

"Emma had been faithful to Joseph; Joseph had taken at least twenty one, perhaps twenty two wives secretly, without Emma's knowledge; he had been unfaithful to his monogamous marriage vows. By his own "revelations," he was guilty of committing adultery. He was the transgressor. According to the above "revelation" which was "given" to her, but meant for "all," if Emma didn't comply with his desires, she would be the "transgressor."

I would only be replacing a term with a statement that says the same thing but in a way that fits the context better. I'm sure that editors on this page believe that this is allowable at WP. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS would not permit you to do that, since you'd be portraying opinions and synthesis from exmormon.org as objective facts. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Duke, either you have absolutely no sense of NPOV, or (much more likely) your only purpose in this conversation is to be an irritating troll. [edit: I retract this statement] Please stop blatantly insulting me. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course to do that you need a source that says polygamous married individuals are committing adultery. I would love to see that reference when you have it. It is interesting that I don't hear any similar accusations against those countries that practice polygamy today? Strange; can you say different standard? When you have those references, bring them to the talk page. It should be fun. Oh, and where did fornication come from? Fornication and adultery are two different things. It seems like there is a desire to sensationalize the topic; but I just can't believe that Duke would do that. He has always been so neutral and we must assume good faith of this editor. Of course, if he demonstrates differently then bad faith is evident. Cheers. -^StormRider 05:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As soon as I verify my sources I will be introducing the adulterer angle into this article ... it will then be up to the tbms to add 'non-adulterer' citations to counter-balance my cites. Nobody answered my question above about 'replacing a term with a statement that says the same thing in a way that fits the context better', but since you were using that method I figure that it must be on the up and up. ...but what do you think ?

p.s. do you want me to place an official WP:AGF warning on your user talk page, or do you just want to knock that crap off now ? The choice is yours. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Large modifications regarding "the adulterer angle" might fit better into Criticism of Joseph Smith, Jr.#Criticisms regarding sex and marriage and its subarticles. Note that we do already have a sentence in this article that states "Smith's plural relationships were preceded by a "priesthood marriage," which Smith believed legitimized the relationships and made them non-adulterous." If you really want to state the obvious, you could add that those who don't follow Smith's school of thought consider polygamous relationships to be adultery, and therefore consider Smith an adulterer. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Duke53, what is the source of your proposed citation? If you are suggesting that Smith's plural marriages were defined as adultery under D&C 132, I think that's an interpretive leap, and one that Smith--whose word after all was "the law" with respect to defining Mormon adultery--would have disagreed. If you read D&C 132 closely, there is a lot of built-in ambiguity that can undermine any bright-line rules you might think exist there. COGDEN 06:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

COGDEN, I will have my ducks in a row when I decide that the addition is ready for this article. But there are a few things that you should be aware of:

1) Mention (and citations) of his adultery will be based on the definition outlined by the law of the land at that time, not by Smith's own 'law'.

2) Smith lied about being a polygamist, why would any normal person believe that he wouldn't lie about being an adulterer ? His 'truthfulness' about his own behavior is highly suspect at best. Any denials of his concerning his adulterous behavior will be treated with much skepticism.

3) A while ago I made the decision to not respond to trolls and / or stalkers; I absolutely do NOT consider you either of the above, so I will respond to you (as time permits). I have quite a few irons in the fire right now, so I will be visiting WP only when I get a bit of free time. I may pop in for a few minutes here and there, but expect my participation to be spotty until Spring holidays are completed; my plate is full until then. Best. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Alas, COgden has been designated as worthy of response. My heart is broken and my tears can't stop. Oh, well, I am still eager to see the references. Curious, Smith did nto have a "definition", certainly one that does not conflict with any known definitions today. However, there is that spin issue that some have. Regardless, let's see what comes up. You trolls and stalkers stop pestering poor Duke. -^StormRider 08:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a request for arbitration concerning Duke53's behavior. I think any further commentary regarding him, positive or otherwise, should be taken to that venue so that the content issues may be the focus here. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

First Vision and misplaced citations

Smith later said that he had his own first vision in 1820, in which God told him his sins were forgiven[15] and that all churches were false.[16]

• 15 - {{Harvtxt|Smith|1832}}; {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|p=39}} (When Smith first described the vision twelve years after the event, "[h]e explained the vision as he must have first understood it, as a personal conversion".)
• 16 - {{Harvtxt|Smith|Mulholland|Thompson|Phelps|Richards|1839–1843|p=3}}. This vision was generally unknown to early Latter Day Saints. ''See'' {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|p=39}} (story was unknown to most early converts); {{Harvtxt|Allen|1966|p=30}} (the first vision received only limited circulation in the 1830s). However, the vision story gained increasing theological importance within the [[Latter Day Saint movement]] beginning roughly a half century later. ''See'' {{Harvtxt|Shipps|1985|pp=30–32}}; {{Harvtxt|Allen|1966|pp=43–69}}; {{Harvtxt|Quinn|1998|p=176}} ("Smith's first vision became a missionary tool for his followers only after Americans grew to regard modern visions of God as unusual.").

We used to state here that Smith's vision was not well known among early saints. The references for this statement appear to remain in footnote 16, but we've since cut the statement out. The refs don't seem to have anything to do with "God told him...that all churches were false", and so need to be cleaned up.

Recently, someone tried changing "God told him" to "God (the Father) and Jesus Christ (the Son) appeared to him and told him". Foxe reverted, saying that "Bushman doesn't say this". However, the quoted Bushman page is 39, where he was summarizing Smith's 1832 account. Bushman then says at the end of page 39, "At first, Joseph was reluctant to talk about his vision", and at the top of page 40, "When he described his First Vision in 1832, he abbreviated the experience. ¶ As Joseph became more confident, more details came out." I'm not suggesting we assume Bushman's POV here—he is obviously providing apologetic reasoning for the differences between versions—but it is wrong to assume Bushman doesn't support that "Smith said God and Jesus appeared to him". ...comments? ~BFizz 16:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Placement of the First Vision has been a difficulty at this article since I arrived. The First Vision is supposed to have occurred 1820, but Smith first mentions it ten years later. The canonical account is later still. At one point in the evolution of this article, there was no mention of the First Vision in the paragraph about Smith's early years. But then it worked its way back in again, largely I think because most Mormons don't understand that Smith reached his canonical understanding of the First Vision near the end of his life. (Smith's mature teachings about God and Jesus Christ are well discussed in the section on Cosmology and Theology.) I'd certainly support the statement's re-removal because the First Vision has nothing to do with Smith's early life or the founding of the Church. The one thing the paragraph should not imply is the canonical story: that Smith, as a teenager, told friends and relatives that God and Jesus Christ had appeared to him.--John Foxe (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Or in other words, Joseph Smith is not a reliable reference for his life. The only reliable references are people who live today. Thank God we don't use that standard for Jesus Christ; can you imagine the difficulty of limiting stories of Jesus to only "reliable" references rather than the Gospels themselves? Of course, our Evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, and other friends would never tolerate that. We only use this standard for Mormonism because it is "controversial" and not realisitc like Jesus waking from the dead and retaking his body and returning to God the Father. How silly of me. Guys, the double standard really is egregious. ^StormRider

Even though you intend to be sarcastic, you've got it exactly right, Storm. Wikipedia standards privilege secondary sources over primary sources, so Bushman and Brodie are reliable sources about the life of Joseph Smith, but Joseph Smith is not.--John Foxe (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, Bushman doesn't wait to discuss the accounts of the First Vision until his narrative gets to the 1830s, but rather places it chronologically at the point when it is supposed to have taken place, the 1820s. He at least doesn't seem to regard it as having nothing to do with Smith's early life. I wonder what other reliable biographers have done; it might help inform this discussion. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A few responses to Foxe's statements:

The one thing the paragraph should not imply is the canonical story: that Smith, as a teenager, told friends and relatives that God and Jesus Christ had appeared to him - Correct. Sources generally agree that he didn't tell his friends as a teenager.

the First Vision has nothing to do with Smith's early life - Wrong. Of course it has to do with his early life: Smith claimed that the First Vision occurred in 1820. Obviously, we need not get into deep discussion of his teachings regarding the nature of God at that point in the article, but like Bushman, I think it important for us to note at this point in the chronology that Smith said the First Vision occurred.

Sorry, I should have made it clear that the two paragraphs I wrote at the beginning of this section are two disjoint concerns that happen to deal with the same sentence. 1) lingering citations for now-deleted text, 2) what Bushman says or doesn't say. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fawn Brodie also gets the First Vision in early—but only to ridicule it as possibly a "sheer invention, created some time after 1830 when the need arose for a magnificent tradition to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money-digging."(25) Someone else can correct me here if I'm wrong, but I believe Dan Vogel avoids the First Vision story completely because he takes Joseph only to Kirtland, and the First Vision story was publicized after that.

As a believer, Bushman almost of necessity had to mention the First Vision early, but he at least says that "most early converts probably never heard about the 1820 vision," an experience that Brodie says "if it had happened, would have been the most soul-shattering experience of his whole youth." Obviously if you believe that Smith had the First Vision, then it would have had an impact on his early life. But all secondary sources agree that there's no contemporary evidence for it.--John Foxe (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the citation at First Vision, Brodie actually says it "was probably the elaboration of some half-remembered dream...or it may have been sheer invention" (emphasis mine), leaving open the possibility that something did in fact occur in 1820 (even if it was only a dream or hallucination). We're not writing this article from a believing or disbelieving standpoint. Smith said it happened in 1820, so it makes sense to mention it where Smith said it happened. We don't assert that it actually happened, and we don't assert that (if it happened) it had any impact on his life. We just mention that's what Smith said happened at that time in his life. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I'd certainly support removal of the sentence in question, it's pretty tame and says nothing about Smith seeing God and Jesus. For that reason, and because there would be constant attempts to reinsert it anyway, I don't object to its continuance.--John Foxe (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with it as is, though I'd support specifying Smith seeing God and Jesus, and would oppose its removal. So we're both OK with it as it stands; I'll leave it to others to argue if they feel strongly about changing it. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Foxe, secondary sources are preferred, but in the case of Mormonism that would be the scripture texts just like we use in the case of Jesus. Outside of the Bible there is almost nothing to support the reality of Jesus Christ...Josephus is hardly a glowing support given the controversy with it. It is still a double standard. I would support stating what the text says, Jesus and God appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 while still a boy. Then while still a boy/young teen he continued to see an angel until such time as the angel decided he could have the plates. -^StormRider 18:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, Mormon scriptures (including the Bible) are not reliable sources, which are defined as materials "vetted by the scholarly community" and/or "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."--John Foxe (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I support the existing text (though we can certainly address the footnote concerns raised by B Fizz). I think there is at least reasonable historical evidence that Smith had some sort of mystical experience in his youth. He initially would have taken that experience to signify a remission of his sins, and possibly a confirmation of the anti-sectarian views he shared with his father. But if the vision is mentioned chronologically, I don't think we should make too much of it, given that Smith himself didn't initially make too much of what would have been seen at the time as a run-of-the-mill theophany. He, for example, didn't think to cite the experience as evidence of his prophethood until his authority was threatened by the Kirtland Safety Society fiasco. COGDEN 20:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the misplaced references. They are still recorded at the top of this talk page section, if anyone wanted to use them elsewhere. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the Joseph Smith history, it plainly states i.e. there is no confusion or ability to misunderstand, that the first vision was not limited to a forgiveness of sins and it had a major impact on his life. Strange that something so significant is tossed aside. Is that done with Bernadette Soubirou? The quick answer is no; nor with Jesus, Muhammad, etc. etc. etc. -^StormRider 14:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Vision for this article

I think this article, or any other similar to it (i.e., where the subject is a controversial religious or political leader with a well studied and documented life), should achieve the following:

• Reflect the important historical facts of the person's life and legacy that reliable scholars agree upon OR are non-controversial
• Reflect (but do not attempt to answer) the important factual questions that reliable scholars disagree on, regarding the person's life and legacy
• Document (but do not adopt as Wikipedia's position) the important subjective points of view regarding the person's character, motivations, and influence, from:
  • Reliable scholars
  • Notable followers/apologists
  • Notable opponents/critics
  • The person himself or herself
  • The general public, where reliably surveyed
• Avoid disparaging, laudatory, conclusory, or speculative language

Does anyone have anything to add to this vision, or to contest? Having a collective vision akin to this would help guide our discussions and provide a foundation of mutual trust. A lot of arguments seem to stem from one side thinking the other side is trying to distort the article into something that favors their point of view. Agreement on what a non-distorted article might entail could perhaps avoid that sort of conflict. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Very well said. I believe it significant to focus on both the person's life as well as legacy. For this article, basically everything should be in summary style, since we have various subarticles for both his life and his legacy. I would add one more thing: reflect important personal facts of the person's life. Details about a person's personal life, such as childhood, marriage, and children, may not be very important to history in general, but they are still important to the article. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything except the third point. When we try to include a number of various competing perspectives, we have to follow both WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. If there are genuine mainstream competing views, we should absolutely cover all of them, covering the majority view and at least mentioning any significant minority views. However, fringe views are treated differently. Most often, fringe views are not even mentioned, except in specialized articles about the fringe view.

So I'm not saying that fringe views about Joseph Smith (i.e., that he was never a polygamist, or never practiced magic) have no place in Wikipedia. Such views may be presented in specialized articles, but would be rarely mentioned in a biographical article such as this one--and it if they are mentioned, they would have to have some notable link to his contemporary history. For example, we must mention that Smith claimed to have seen an angel in 1823, because that claim itself has momentous historical consequence. COGDEN 05:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

COgden, are you saying that the only non-FRINGE subjective viewpoints are those of the reliable scholars? I'm trying to understand your remarks. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the current wording of point 3 already covers COgden's concerns: "Document the important subjective points of view". Heresay among the faithful or among critics obviously need not be documented. Viewpoints that are clearly expressed in official LDS or CoC literature should probably be documented, though. Smith's own words, whether fringe or not, are obviously relevant to the article and should be documented (as they have been). ...comments? ~BFizz 14:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In the 'real world' I am an academic (though I state this merely because lecturing is my vocation - I don't claim to be very smart) and I accept that this article needs to be built upon reliable, secondary bona fide sources. However, what it lacks - and I take these points from Storm and Fizz - is much contemporary context other than (mainly) from the perspectives of several key biographers who are, in my opinion, a bit too over-relied upon. I guess what I mean is that I like the article as it has evolved but still feel there is a lack of interesting primary source material - apologetic or otherwise. I fought to keep a lot of it in there, but most was relegated to the footnotes. I do lean towards Storm's opinion that, for whatever reason, the tone of the article is more critical than informative. Regardless of whether my great-grandma's great-grandpa was a complete fraud or a prophet of God, which isn't what is important to me personally, he was still a charismatic guy who had the ability to lead folks and influence generations, making a historical impact. I respect that there are editors whose goal is to paint Smith as a religious icon in the same way there are those who want it stressed he was a fake - however, I don't share either agenda. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

@B Fizz: I think that "fringe" views should be treated as "fringe" views, regardless of whether or not an organization such as the LDS Church or Community of Christ endorses them. We don't really pay attention to organizational endorsements, unless the organization reflects some kind of academic consensus. For example, the official views of the American Historical Association might be worth noting, but not the official views of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies--it's not that their views are wrong, just that their views are an extreme minority.

@A Sniper: I agree with you that adding primary source material would make the article more interesting. But practically, I don't see how we can do that without excessively ballooning the size of the article, which is already on the large side. I think we have to paint with large brush strokes, which means extensive use of the the secondary sources who have already synthesized the primary material and made generalizations. COGDEN 20:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

COgden, your remarks don't recognize the distinction I've tried to draw. Questions of historical fact should rightfully be answered by reliable historians, as expressed in the secondary sources they produce. The first two bullet points I offered above cover that aspect of a biographical article, both the agreed-upon and disputed questions of fact. But historical fact is not, in my opinion, the only aspect of a person's life that an encyclopedia article should endeavor to address. The third bullet point covers the realm of opinion regarding that person, and in general the notable opinions will not be limited to those of the scholars—they will also belong to the person's significant friends, enemies, the general public (with caveats), and himself or herself. Wikipedia should not endorse anyone's opinion of an article's subject, but ought to describe the important ones. Your examples of fringe views seem to speak to the objective (historical) aspects such as whether he did or said X, not the subjective aspects I meant to cover with that third bullet point such as judgments of his character, intentions, motivations, inbound and outbound influences, and so forth. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on what range of opinions you are talking about, and what the purpose of including them is. If it is a fact of Smith's history itself that is included for its notability, then fringe opinions are excluded from the noted range of opinions as to that fact. If the opinion is somehow independently notable as part of Joseph Smith's story, then that would also be included. For example, Martin Harris' opinion of Smith was important to show why Harris became one of the first Mormons. Isaac Hale's opinion of Smith is probably also important, to show the tension with the in-laws. If the opinion relates only to Mormon doctrine, particularly Mormon doctrine that originated after Smith's death, then its relevance to this article is more tenuous than contemporary information. There are plenty of Mormon doctrine articles, but limited space in this article for the tangled, complex array of contradictory post-Smith developments within and without Mormonism. It's better to note the various denominations that are his legacy, include a decent section that summarizes his legacy, and paints his impact with relatively broad brush-strokes, and rely on those sub-articles to explain their intricate doctrines concerning the nature and being of Joseph Smith. COGDEN 08:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"If the opinion is somehow independently notable as part of Joseph Smith's story, then that would also be included." I feel that several beliefs held generally by Latter Day Saints, or asserted by LDS churches, (though unproven by history) fall into this category of being independently notable, and therefore needful of inclusion in this article. A few non-exhaustive examples: beliefs regarding Smith's first vision, beliefs regarding his reasoning for various doctrines (including polygamy) and actions (such as Zion's Camp), and beliefs regarding his claim to divine authority. Anyone reading this article should, among other things, get a clear picture of what Latter Day Saints generally believe about him. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how it is presented. If the fringe historical beliefs are presented as competing with standard history, then we have a problem. On the other hand, if the fringe beliefs are somehow a notable part of Smith's standard history, then that's great--we should include it. Also, even if a fringe view has nothing to do with his story, but it notably relates to Smith's legacy, we still might be able to (carefully) include it in the legacy section. COGDEN 03:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This page's archives

We have previously kept record of this page's archives manually in the infobox near the top of the page. I suggest we switch to using this template: {{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=14 days}} I've made the change already, but wanted to add this section here to make sure we could discuss it in case anyone is against it. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Double standards?

I hesitate to embrace Storm's comparison between "scripture" describing Joseph Smith's life and "scripture" describing the life of Jesus; there are many differences, for example, the life of Smith is much more well-documented outside of scripture. However, it is true that The life of Jesus in the New Testament is written following the chronology of Jesus' life, rather than addressing the gospels in chronological order of when they were written; I can see where Storm's "double-standard" accusation is coming from. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This Joseph Smith article is more analogous to the Historical Jesus article. If there were an article entitled "Life of Joseph Smith in his 1838-39 history", or "Life of Joseph Smith in LDS Church Education System manuals", that would be more analogous to The life of Jesus in the New Testament. COGDEN 01:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your comparison. This article is more akin to the Jesus article. There is a section addresses the historical Jesus, as in no evidence of anything that is said about him or believed by Christians. However, the article itself is firmly based in belief or what I would call sacred history. The only difference between the two articles is the double standard used in their writing and the presumption that editors whould respect sacred history as the priority and then follow up with the historical Jesus.

Double standards are used when editors are so thoroughly blind to the premise of their own beliefs they do not see what is before their eyes. They are incapable to use the same standard for their own beliefs that they demand of others. Worse, they ignore the facts of another's beliefs so completely they blithely throw out the words of the founder, his family, his friends (unless it is negative) for the words of "historians" regardless of agenda and those that can only assemble bits and pieces of the story years ofter the fact. This makes no sense.

If we look at the "history" of Jesus and the early Christians we find almost the same type of accusations as those leveled at Joseph Smith. However, those histories are expunged as having no basis in fact and in this article it is the only facts that preoccupy the article. -^StormRider 07:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your complaint is mostly directed against the way Wikipedia rules work, Storm. But it's also true, as Martin Marty has observed, that LDS beginnings are so recent "that there is no place to hide....There is little protection for Mormon sacredness." ("Two Integrities: An Address to the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," in George D. Smith, ed., Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992], 174.)--John Foxe (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, Storm argues that we should tell the "sacred history" along with the "provable history", noting each as what they are. Foxe seems interested in minimizing the "sacred history" included and maximizing the "provable history". Is that a good description of your respective editorial views? These are two valid editorial opinions; there is no absolute "right" or "wrong" in selecting criteria for inclusion in this article. But we need to be clear about what we are discussing. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that there exists a distinct "sacred history" or mythology of Joseph Smith outside the confines of actual history. There is just one history. Mormon scholars who deal with Smith's life, such as Bushman and Hill, use traditional (modern) historical methods and standards. They have not become mythologists. What you might call "sacred history" is still history—just history without regard for more rigorous academic standards. As such, it might be the suitable subject for a separate article, but that's not this article. COGDEN 17:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the only article on Wikipedia that enforces your standard COgden; there is no other. Muhammad and Jesus conflict completely with this standard. They both address the topic from the religious viewpoint almost entirely. Only in this article is the religious perspective completely, totally denied as valid. Instead, we appeal to historians (some that admit openly they write for an objective such as Brody and others) exclusively. Secondary sources are preferred ONLY when primary sources cannot be understood or that there are diverse interpretations, which is not the problem with any of scriptures that describe the history of Joseph Smith and the early days of the Church. Rigorous academic standards is a red herring because they are limited in their sources to use and they then make a deduction on the sources available. It is a stool that stands on a single leg. There is no reason to use the actual history from the people involved; primarily Joseph Smith. Up until now his words have been expunged from the article to provide the pseudo appearance of neutrality and historical accuracy. Why is this article handled uniquely from Muhammad's article? Why the double standard? Who is benefited by this double standard? Who is harmed by it? Those answers remove the cover for POV pushing and anything but neutrality. -^StormRider 18:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with COGDEN that history is one. In presenting that history, pure neutrality is impossible because man is finite, imperfect, and sinful; but it is the duty of the historian to present past events as clearly and objectively as possible. When "sacred history" veers from the truth of the historical record, it becomes to that extent a pious lie.

If there's double standard at Muhammed and Jesus, then Storm's complaint is with those articles.

It's incorrect to say that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources "ONLY when primary sources cannot be understood." WP:RS states, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible....When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised."--John Foxe (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

According to "provable history", Smith didn't mention the "First Vision" until the 1830s, and gave different details as time went on. Whether or not he had the vision is practically unprovable. According to "sacred history", Smith saw the Father and Son in 1820.

According to "provable history", the person we call Jesus might have existed. He might have been born of a woman named Mary. He might have gathered followers that might have eventually organized and become what we might call the early Catholic church. According to "sacred history", Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles, atoned for the sins of mankind, and rose from the dead.

I feel there is an obvious importance in explaining the religious beliefs surrounding a person. If the Jesus article only stuck to the "provable history" of his life, it would be about two paragraphs long. I agree with the notion of absolute truth in regards to history: things happened in a particular way and that's it. But "provable history" is not a complete view of that "one history", and the work of even the best scholars is sometimes incorrect. Religious views are arguably more often incorrect, but are also an important look at the "one history". I believe in the past Foxe has put forward the editorial opinion that this article should stick to just history and leave religious details to other articles. I disagree in that regard. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember saying that we ought to ignore religious details here. (But then sometimes I read stuff I've written and shake my head wondering where my brain was on that occasion.) One can't deal with Joseph Smith without considering religious details. Fawn Brodie tried it, but the omission weakened her biography.

Again, if there's a problem with the article on Jesus, that's something that should be dealt with over there. This one's about Joseph Smith, and there are, among other things, five hefty volumes of Early Mormon Documents on which to base biographies.--John Foxe (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Foxe, I didn't mean to put words into your mouth. ;) As for the Jesus article, I don't feel there's a problem there. On the contrary, I use it as an exemplary article to follow. Though I'm sure if I gave it as much attention as I do this article, I could find some things to fix. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we are missing the elephant in the room, cultural history. We live in a culture which is heavily based in the traditions of the Catholic (Christian) practices. 500 years ago if you dared to criticize Jesus you were killed as a heretic. And the practice has endured of people raising a stink over disrespect for popular religious figures (Mohammed, Allah, Jesus, God ...). To avoid the reaction to such we have traditionally kept quiet on such matters. Now along comes Joseph Smith. Two differences arise. One, Joseph Smith is not accepted by the mainstream of American culture. Two, the LDS people take a pacifistic approach to religious persecutions against them. In essence, Mormons have become "fair game" because they do not have the critical numbers to support their position and because there is a common cultural acceptance of mocking their beliefs openly.

So what is the solution? I hope I am not offending anyone, but in the U.S. there seems to still be a culture of selective discrimination. I am more in favour of the general European model (the Swiss situation being atypical) of universal tolerance of all cultures and faiths, whether one likes them or not. I believe what I, and others, have been arguing all along is that our religious heritage be treated with the same dignity and respect as is shown others. I mean no offense, but it seems to me that most of the editors here are from the USA. My more 'progressive' non-LDS friends would likely call the tone here a bit 'redneck.' (I agree, it would be kind of hypocritical for them to stereotype 'stereotypers'). I am able to look beyond the regional characteristics and would argue this is not an individual, or even regional problem, but it is a systemic one. I wonder what this article would look like if it were researched and edited by contributors from a more Muslim or Jewish or Lutheran background (each culture having experience with religious discrimination). Again, no offense is intended here, but as an outsider to the American culture I felt my observations might be helpful.

As long as the individual editors here are going to continue with their labeling and defamation of Joseph Smith as a liar, an adulterer, and a traitor (and then turn the same dirty brush on a mother of 9 who knew a life of incredible hardship and persecution) the problem won't end. As long as the key editors here have a negative attitude toward this religiously sensitive figure the problem won't end. The article will be stuck in the miry clay of intolerance, and common readers will be left with a cynical and skeptical view of Wikipedia as a whole.

I've been calling for a paradigm shift here all along. Not to push Joseph Smith. To push fairness. I would be just as vocal if Luther, or Mohammed, or Billy Graham were treated in the same insensitive way. I know it is not likely that the same editors who brought us to this point will be the ones to fix the problem. But as long as these posts are archived, I figure I'd wade in and offer my thoughts for improvement.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Our personal views about Joseph Smith, the LDS Church, Luther, Muhammad, and Billy Graham are of no consequence here. According to Wikipedia rules, articles must be based on scholarly, peer-reviewed secondary sources—and this one is.--John Foxe (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally do not want to see this article written from a cultural perspective - I want to see it written from bona fide sources. Only when all of us working from different perspectives - but basing our work on mutual respect and the use of reliable material - can we fashion an article that is truly encyclopedic. Back when I edited often I was one of the only editors from my persepctive in what seemed like a sea of LDS & anti-LDS editors (I am neither). Smith was either the fake snakeoil seller or a gigantic statue in Salt Lake City - rarely anywhere in the middle...and it is that human element that I have tried to interject, because Smith is fascinating to me as a charismatic man out of Americana who had followers and enemies, and not because I think he is a charlatan or a god-like Prophet. I admitted openly that I am a direct descendant (and rather a CoC apologist, but only due to a life of connection and not on account of belief or support) but willing to labor on consensus and to explore all avenues of scholarship in verifying sources. One of my only complaints was what appeared to be the trend of dismissing out of hand all primary sources with all weight on the latest secondary works, which all seemed to fall into the camps of the new Mormon history or the axe-to-grinders (with no Howard or Launius in there). I fully understand the wiki rules re: secondary sources, but still felt that contemporary news/writings were relevant. I'm not opposed to having any 'sacred' stuff peppered...but whose specifically? LDS modern? LDS contemporary? Instead can't we just do what we've always been doing - bouncing ideas off of each other and trying to paint the whole picture, without sliding over to just one camp? Above all it should be about respecting each other as we do this thing. My last thought would be about why I re-entered the scene to open my mouth about the Emma photo box - this was because I wanted her own words, her own perspective, to be noted, even if editors could interpret personally that she was deluded, or a liar...but at least the fact she continually stated these words until her deathbed would be memorialized. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no issue with the Jesus and Muhammad articles, and I think they are pretty good, especially Muhammad. But both Jesus and Muhammad are mostly mythology with a little history thrown in (a bit more history for Muhammad than Jesus), whereas Joseph Smith is almost all history and only a tiny amount of mythology. By saying that, I'm not implying that the mythology is "untrue" or that mythology is inferior to history, I'm just saying that it is the nature of scripture to care more about presenting stories with intended universal meaning, rather than about presenting some intended genuine representation of the past. Thus, it's only expected that the Jesus and Muhammad articles would look more like the Prester John article, and be written from a mythological perspective, while the Joseph Smith article would look more like the Thomas S. Monson article, and be written from a historical perspective. COGDEN 05:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no problems with the Jesus article or the Muhammad article; the problems lies with this article. It is unique in its approach to this individual. No one has yet to answer my questions from above, why? The sacred history cannot be proved wrong; it is what it is. To think that historians can recreate every event from over 200 years ago is a joke. Editors consistently have omitted statements that conflict with what they perceive is "the history" of Smith. Smith's mother could not be trusted to talk about her son, so ignore her comments. However, Howe the axe-grinder, should be used. We have completely moved the pendulum to the far end and closed our eyes. The result is a very narrow perspective of this individual. The objective is to inform and when a LDS cannot even recognize the article as being about Joseph Smith then there is a problem. Balance is sorely lacking here. -^StormRider 05:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia rules, articles must be based on scholarly, peer-reviewed secondary sources. Neither Joseph Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, nor E. D. Howe are scholarly, peer-reviewed secondary sources. If an LDS member is unable to "recognize the article as being about Joseph Smith," that deficiency is a problem for both the Church and the member in question.--John Foxe (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No that is not what the policy states and it is evident when anyone reads it in its entirety. Second, thank you for sharing your opinion; it was very much appreciated. Now please answer the questions asked above. Why is there a double standard? Why is this article unique on Wikipedia? Please just stop the dodging and answer the questions. They are simple I would assume for almost any editor. -^StormRider 14:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If you've found a double standard between this article and other Wikipedia articles, the problem must be with the others because this article follows Wikipedia standards that privilege scholarly, peer-reviewed secondary sources.--John Foxe (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess the answer is 1) you don't want to answer, 2) you don't know, or 3) you know, but it would make your position look poor and you choose to ignore it. I understand how difficult it is when your position is wholly built on sand. -^StormRider

Although this article has its weaknesses like any other, it's a fine example of neutrality. During each of the article's several unsuccessful GA nominations, reviewers complained that the article was too pro-Mormon.--John Foxe (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Storm, there is no double standard. The Joseph Smith article is treated like any other article about a 19th century historical figure. If we treated Smith like a Jesus-like mythological figure, but treated every other 19th century person as historical people, then would be a double standard. COGDEN 21:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

COgden, the comparison is not an apples and apples comparison. Then we speak of religious figures there is always an element of faith involved and historicity ignores this fundamental part of the character. For example, Bob Jones University commits to the belief that the Bible is the actual Word of God. That is why, for them, it is completely acceptable to use the Bible to support the belief in the man called Jesus and his works and activities. The same principle is used by those Islamic Universities that believe in Muhammad. It does not matter what century and individual is born in; please don't tell me that you actual think that historians know everything about individuals in the 19th century. That premise is just as weak as those who believe in mythology.

Heck, just look at Bob Jones, Sr. for an example of how a religious figure is treated. I dare anyone to say there is not a double standard after reading that article. I find it particularly interesting that Foxe is an editor of that page and yet it drips with flowery language. I have to go clean the floor up again. -^StormRider 12:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy for anyone to check out Bob Jones, Sr. and complain of a double standard. How about this sentence: "There are few references to race in Jones's sermons and chapel messages until the late 1950s, but in a 1960 radio address, Jones declared that God had been the author of segregation and that opposition to segregation was opposition to God"?--John Foxe (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Foxe, if you cannot read Bob Jones' article and compare it to this one and not see a shocking difference in tone and use of references, then there is a major problem. COgden's position is also called into question given that this is a 20th century fellow and the article is tract for "what a wonderful man", let's all go to BJU. I have provided several examples of articles that are treated completely differently than this article. I believe I have proven beyond doubt that there is a double standard being used. Historicity is being used as a shield to achieve a narrow agenda. My sole objective is that the article be one of balance, which has been lost in its entirety here. One cannot see the forest for the trees. -^StormRider 06:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can hold the Bob Jones, Sr. article up as the gold standard. It's better to look toward featured articles, which have been checked for neutrality and Wikipedia policy. If we are looking for a good peer article for comparison, I'd suggest L. Ron Hubbard, another article about a controversial religious founder. However, the Hubbard article is very long for a featured article--almost twice the size of this one. The difficulty in achieving featured status increases as the article gets larger than about where we are now. COGDEN 22 March 2011 (UTC)

COgden's right that L. Ron Hubbard is a better comparison with this article than Bob Jones, Sr., and not just because it's been nominated as a feature article. Jones, unlike Hubbard and Smith, didn't found a new religion. Nor are there many peer-reviewed sources that one can use to create a Wikipedia biography for Jones. (There's no scholarly biography at all, not even a dissertation or scholarly article.) Furthermore, Jones's life is pretty humdrum by the standards of Smith and Hubbard. No visions, no run-ins with the law, and only one wife at a time.--John Foxe (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I was not offering Bob Sr. as a gold standard. I was offereing it as an example of an article edited by John Foxe that is a complete powder puff, but one that is obviously acceptable to Foxe. That is a flagrant double standard perfectable acceptable to Fox.

Now we have a proposal to compare it to L Ron Hubbard. Tell me boys and girls does this fish stink? Is that why it was chosen? Particularly when the comparison initially was with the Jesus and the Muhammad articles. Are not Jesus and Muhammad founders of religions? Why are they not appropriate? -^StormRider 13:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

An important reason why it would be more appropriate to compare Joseph Smith to L. Ron Hubbard—or to a more obscure founder of a religion whose article I've also put time into, Frank Sandford—than to Jesus and Muhammad is that there are so few primary sources that have survived from more than a millennium ago. There are plenty from the nineteenth century and twentieth centuries. As I quoted Martin Marty above, LDS beginnings are so recent "that there is no place to hide....There is little protection for Mormon sacredness."--John Foxe (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Storm Rider: the only reason I mentioned the L. Ron Hubbard article is not because Hubbard should be compared personally with Smith. Rather, it was because the Hubbard article is the only biography of a controversial religious founder that has thus far achieved featured article status. Plus, Hubbard's followers share some of the love-hate relationship with his history that Smith's followers have. Though the Hubbard article is not perfect, and there are ongoing debates there, its editors have struggled with many of the same challenges, and maybe we can learn something. COGDEN 23:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

COgden, I have worked too long on the Catholic Church and Jesus articles not to understand the difference and role of historisity and sacred history. This double standard here really boils down to the ability of the majority to be tyranical over a minority. I have offered the obvious puff piece found in Bob Jones, Sr. article (one which Foxe has edited) and demonstrated how the double standard exists.

None of the references, as in not one, disprove the sacred history of Smith's life. The First Vision is no disproved, it is simply ignored in the proper context. Historicity is not the basis of an entire article. Ignoring so much of the story because they are primary sources is not following policy, it is a misuse and distortion of the property. It actually reminds me of one of Frank Herbert's books, the Dosadi Experiment and how law is becomes so twisted. Good read if you have a chance. Of course, if reflects badly on that less than noble occupation of being a lawyer. I digress. One of the great weakness of man is of not knowing they don't know. -^StormRider 06:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Having made unproven and idiosyncratic assertions about other articles, assertions that no one else here has seconded, you've then decided that your intuitions should be applied here, even if such changes would violate Wikipedia rules about the nature of reliable sources.--John Foxe (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Not one of you has disagreed that there is a double standard when compared to the Jesus and Muhammad articles. No one has disagreed that the Bobby article is not a complete puffery. In fact, not one person has disagreed with anything I have said. What you and COgden have tried to do is deflect the argument and offered alternative comparisons. Not one person has denied my interpretation of policy, even though you have tried to pick pieces of it while ignoring the policy as a whole. So now, what were you saying about unproven? It sounds like you are producing the same kind of ...let's just omit my vocabulary here and allow you to be creative...that is seen over at Bobby's article. The fact that you participate on both articles is what is so galling. You protect your own church and founder while attacking unjustly others. Historicity is not the sum total of an article for any other individual on Wikipedia in the category of Joseph Smith. You, COgden and I all know this is a fact. Why not just admit it? As an aside, no one ever answered my questions above. Why? Sort of makes your arguments goo doesn't it? -^StormRider 14:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to prove a double standard. I insist there is none. The question you have posed is a loaded one. Without proof, you insist that there is a double standard, then you insist that I explain why the double standard exists. But there is no double standard. Your belief that there is one is an unproved assertion, a product of your desire to insert material in this article that does not meet Wikipedia standards of evidence: that articles "be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and with "academic and peer-reviewed publications" being "the most reliable."--John Foxe (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

@Storm Rider: I do disagree that there is a double standard. It's the same standard, which is that we mimic the range of views found within mainstream academia secondary sources, and generally ignore fringe views unless they have some special relevance. For Jesus and Muhammad, the only primary sources available are legend and mythology, and the secondary sources all deal with that legendary primary source material. For Joseph Smith, on the other hand, almost all the primary sources are contemporary history, and the ones that are old reminiscences are still amenable to standard historical analysis. More importantly, all the mainstream secondary sources rely on the historical materials, and treat Joseph Smith as a historical figure. I have yet to meet even a fringe Mormon scholar that doesn't at least give lip service to historical methodology. It would be a double standard if we treated the article on Joseph Smith any differently than we treat other early 19th century figures, particularly given that Joseph Smith has far more contemporary primary source material than most other historical figures from his era. Whether it's Jesus or Joseph, we take our clues from the mainstream secondary sources. COGDEN 19:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is, "other early 19th century figures" simply don't match Smith when it comes to asserting new doctrines, claiming divine powers and authority, and claiming to receive God's word in the form of additional scripture. The reason I personally find it relevant to mention the "sacred history" is because Smith was so unique in the way he religiously charged his followers. He caused them to believe extraordinary things about himself. Regardless of whether these views are unprovable or outright false, the religious beliefs of (now) millions of people regarding this man should be documented. Whether that's a difficult task should not stop us from trying. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Smith was certainly a radical thinker, but I don't think that makes a difference. It's the same standard for everybody, even for history's most extreme cults of personality, like David Koresh, Charles Manson, or Marshall Applewhite (not, by any means, to compare these diabolical crazies with Smith). COGDEN 03:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

COgden, you speak in extremes an "either or"; what I propose is presenting Joseph Smith in a balanced manner. He is both a religious figure and a historical figure. There is no question there is a religious history and there is the historicity. Currently, everything that Joseph Smith said is disabused and ignored. Most everything his close contemporaries stated is also ignored unless it is negative and those comments are cherry picked and somehow, strangely, become acceptable. This article is not recognizable by LDS, RLDS, FLDS, CofC, or any other group within the LDS movement. It is not recognizable because primiary sources are ignored competely, which is not in keeping with WP:NPOV or WP:REF. It would be helpful if you attempted to call Jesus a myth; just to see how long that attempt would last or how long Foxe would allow it. The only reason you get away with it here is because of the topic and the disinterest of the majority.

Lastly, Bushman is more than clear that Smith was not a situation of the cult of personality (and I sure that your three examples were just pulled from the air; completely neutral types, of course). Smith was anything but impressive...except when he spoke of God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. Strange we don't quote that in the article? There does seem to be a lot of stange things missing doesn't there?-^StormRider 06:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand my reference to Jesus and mythology. I'm using mythology in the academic sense here, meaning that what we know about Jesus consists of stories told for a higher(?) religious purpose than mere realism or historical accuracy. We don't have much access to Jesus' history, so the secondary sources can only rely on the mythology surrounding him. For better or for worse, Western thought, and especially modern Western thought, favors history over mythology, and that's just a fact of life. Any Westerner worth his salt would rather have Jesus' history than his mythology, and many mistakenly think his mythology is his history. For Smith, we have a cold, hard, modernist consensus of history, and therefore the secondary sources focus almost entirely on that history. We work with what the secondary sources give us. COGDEN 11:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this disagreement stems from differences in people's vision of what this article should be. I'll start a discussion below. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Con artist

Why is the fact that he was tried and convicted of being a con artist being white washed.

"State Of New York v. Joseph Smith"

State court records prove the Smith was arrested in New York in 1826 for being a con artist. "Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor. Prisoner brought before the Court March 20, 1826. Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra ... that he had a certain stone which he occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground ... he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra he frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds..." (Court records of New York). While the Mormons claimed this never happened, Jerald and Sandra Tanner published the microfilm copies of the court records in 1971, under the title, Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.6.27 (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith's 1826 trial (microfilm listed on Google Books published by Jerald and Sandra Tanner).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.6.27 (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The article already states in the Early years section that "In 1826, he was tried in Chenango County, New York, for the crime of pretending to find lost treasure." ...comments? ~BFizz 23:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

'Con Artist' is not a very neutral phrase. The fact that it is used reveals the bias we are working against in this article. When will the vicious tone end?

Canadiandy1 (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Use of the word "Mormonism"

The phrase "commonly known as Mormonism" after "founder of the Latter Day Saint movement" was removed on the grounds that the term "Mormon" refers specifically to the church following Brigham Young taking over. While I am not a Mormon, from what I understand, this may be technically correct. However, I still think the term "Mormon" should appear somewhere in the lead because many readers will only know the movement by that name, and I do want to make clear to them what we're talking about. Perhaps something like "which led to the movement known as Mormonism" or something of that nature?

For what it's worth, the lead our article Latter Day Saint movement presents the two terms as synonymous, but our article Mormonism does not. Kansan (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There's been a lot of discussion on this topic elsewhere: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints)#Suggestion. I suggest we use the evidence/consensus developed there, which shows the terms have widespread usage. tedder (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Writer, city planner, military leader, and politician."

Why should these descriptors appear in the second sentence of the lead? They all depend on Smith's founding and leadership of the Latter Day Saint movement. What did Smith write? What city did he ever successfully plan? Weren't his attempts at military leadership and involvement in politics absolute disasters?--John Foxe (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Introduction to the article should only summarize what is discussed in the article itself. If these topics are not discussed in the article, they don't have a place in the introduction. Does that make sense to the Anon editor? -^StormRider 10:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Smith wrote many things, he successfully founded and planned the city of Nauvoo, he led its militia, and he was a very notable politician as the mayor of Nauvoo and as a U.S. presidential candidate (although he was unable to complete his campaign because he was assassinated). These are all talked about in the article. They were not "absolute disasters," and even if they were, that does not mean that they shouldn't be listed. It could even be mentioned that he was a newspaper editor and a banker, although these are significantly less notable, so their inclusion is debatable. However, the other four (writer, city planner, military leader, and politician) should DEFINITELY be mentioned. Live Light (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"writer" is an unusual term here, especially since Smith made heavy use of scribes. "city planner", "military leader", and "politician" all refer mostly to the Nauvoo era. I don't see the harm in mentioning the "city planner, military leader, and politician" in the lede where they were; in fact I find them helpful to draw a clearer picture of who Smith was. Most readers wouldn't know that Smith was involved in these things simply from stating he was a "religious leader", and frankly, many readers don't make it past the first paragraph or two. Whether Smith "succeeded" or "failed" in these areas doesn't change the fact that he did indeed do these significant things. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of anything of importance Smith wrote except a non-canonical version of the First Vision. It would be accurate to say he was a "failed city planner, military leader, and politician," but I doubt you folks would let me get away with saying that. As a planned city, Nauvoo was a disaster, built (such of it that was) in a terrible place and never completed. I think no events of Smith's life (beyond his polygamy) got him in more trouble than deciding to be mayor, head of the Nauvoo Legion, and a presidential candidate.--John Foxe (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter. Besides, he was not really a "failed" anything. Nauvoo was certainly a successful project and today is a beautiful city that attracts tourists from all over the country. He also planned the construction of the Nauvoo Temple, although it wasn't finished until after his death. And he may have aroused controversy with his involvement in politics and military leadership; that much is true, but it doesn't matter either. He was a well-known and notable politician, and not only because of who he was outside of politics, but simply because of his political views, which were unique for his time and for our time. Do some research on his presidential platform and you will find that it may be appropriate to add a lot of information to the "political views" section (in fact, I may get working on that). As a military leader, he was no failure there either. The Nauvoo Legion was known to be the most formidable concentration of military power in the American West during that time, according to the Legion's Wikipedia article. As such, with Smith as the Lieutenant General, it's certainly notable for "military leader" to be listed. As for writer, he wrote more than just "a non-canonical version of the First Vision." He wrote (not using a scribe) several documents, including complete volumes of Church history and of his own history and teachings (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith), in addition to legal and business records and his own journal entries. These are certainly "of importance.". Live Light (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with virtually everything you've said above. Repeatedly making bellicose noises at wrong moments demonstrated Smith's utter incapacity at military leadership. Nauvoo today is a theme park compared to the Nauvoo of Smith's day, which was a malaria plagued swamp dotted with miserable log cabins. Only Brigham Young could get the Nauvoo Temple completed because Smith was a comparatively poor motivator. Smith certainly did not write the church histories or the Teachings of Joseph Smith the Prophet. None of this matters, of course. The real question is do those adjectives belong in the lede.--John Foxe (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he did write some Church history volumes and he did write Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (although it was edited by somebody else). And it doesn't matter that he wasn't the greatest military leader. The fact is that it was notable. Whether you agree or not, Smith is an important figure, and one of the most influential figures, of United States history, and it all stems from everything he did. The Nauvoo Legion was one of the most powerful military groups at the time. He was the leader. Therefore, it should be mentioned. And he was absolutely not a "poor motivator." He was renowned for his ability to effectively teach, capture, and motivate audiences. Do your research please. The point is that yes, they should be mentioned. Live Light (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "writing." If you mean "rough ideas dictated to various scribes and modified by later editors," that would fit the definition. Otherwise, no. Smith is a notable figure only because he was the founder of the LDS movement; everything else hangs on that fact. So the real question is whether his being a lousy city planner, a cowardly general, and a foolish dabbler in politics is worth mentioning in the lede. I'm amenable to persuasion on everything but the "writer," but I'm not enthusiastic.--John Foxe (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. His involvement in politics was notable (I fail to see how his political views and ideas were "foolish," but whatever), he was a notable military leader ("cowardly" or not), and he planned a city that would become a majorly important city for Latter Day Saints. Also, he is an important figure not only because he founded the LDS movement. He indirectly caused the West to be settled, et cetera. Anyway, I'll agree that "military leader, politician, and city planner" should be listed, probably in that order (most significant to least). Fair enough? Live Light (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't matter if the projects failed. The real issue is if it's important enough to be in the lede. I mean, if George Washington collected butterflies, would anyone care? Would anyone care enough for it to be mentioned in the lede on George Washington? Likewise, is/should Joseph Smith be known for being a presidential candidate, or are there a half-dozen things more important? tedder (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"City planner"? The man is an icon in the religious history of America and you are going to go with "city planner"? Really - you think that is important enough to be in the first sentence of an article on Joseph Smith? Ridiculous. Military leader? He had himself appointed to a minor city militia that never saw action. Politician? This one is a little better of a case, but still - he was mayor of Nauvoo for what like a year or two five years, and that was only because Nauvoo was effectively a theocracy - again dominated by his religious leadership. Author - I get that, the Book of Mormon is widely influential, but even that is disputed by Mormons. And being a "writer" is not what he is known for. Ultimately though I don't have much of an opinion. I could go either way. Just being the Devil's advocate here.--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Important enough for the first sentence, no. That one clearly states "religious leader" and "founder": the absolutely most important/basic things to know about him. Important enough for the second sentence, yes. I feel it is important to include "politician" at minimum. earlier, Foxe remarked, "I think no events of Smith's life (beyond his polygamy) got him in more trouble than deciding to be mayor, head of the Nauvoo Legion, and a presidential candidate." This is precisely why I feel these details are also fitting for the second sentence: Smith made enough of a splash in these areas that it eventually led to his death. On a related note, it is a good idea to make a clear connection between Joseph Smith and "Mormonism" early in the lede. The reasoning in this edit summary by Descartes makes a lot of sense to me. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Nauvoo Legion was no "minor city militia that never saw action." It was one of the most powerful militias in the nation at the time and it did indeed see action. Regardless of anything, he was a city planner, military leader, and politician. The lede in a Wikipedia article is to say what a person did. Joseph Smith was more than just a religious leader. He was a highly influential figure of American history. Part of his contribution to American history was being a city planner, military leader, and politician. Ergo, they should be listed in the second sentence. Author is debatable. There is no proof that he was the author of the Book of Mormon. I feel that writer should be mentioned, though. His writings are significant to the Latter Day Saint movement, scripture and otherwise. By the way, the sentence "He was also an author, city planner, military leader, and politician" has been on this article for a LONG time. Why is it just now being removed? 63.248.11.9 (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that if something has been untouched on the WP for a long time it is more likely to be accurate. A premise which is false. Anything is open for editing and changing on the WP regardless of how long it has been there. This is a good exercise for us to debate this and come to consensus about what it should say. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Serious John Foxe? When I first read your entry I actually thought for a moment that someone might have hacked your account. Very disappointing to see an editor who has been becoming more and more fair minded over the past few months suddenly do an about turn. Sad, really. Are you purposely trying to set the pendulum swinging again? I will give that Joseph Smith might not be a great author, but only if we are willing to accept the premise that the Book of Mormon is actually authored by Ancient prophets of God through revelation. Otherwise, the Book of Mormon is an amazing work of literature, inspired or not.

Disappointedly,

173.180.109.246 (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Serious Canadiandy? When I read your entry I actually thought for a moment that you were going to make an argument to the facts instead of an ad hominem attack on another editor. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Descartes? Sarcasm is poor Wikipedia form. --Canadiandy

Guess we are both guilty then ;). --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because he is overwhelmingly notable in one area doesn't mean that other areas of minor notability shouldn't be mentioned in the lede. The question is, if you pretend that Smith didn't found a religion, what else, if anything, would he be notable for? I think there are good cases to be made to include the following in the lede:

• Smith was a writer: He dictated the Book of Mormon, most of the D&C, and a revision of the Bible. Of these, the Book of Mormon is the most notable. In the beginning, he was more notable as the writer of the Book of Mormon than as a religious founder.
• Smith was a town planner: Nobody would doubt that Brigham Young was a notable town planner, but Brigham Young didn't do anything he hadn't learned from Smith. Smith planned Nauvoo, Far West, and Zion (never built, but influential in later Mormon designs). The Mormon school of city planning, which Smith founded, has been a topic of scholarship in its own right. See, e.g, Cecilia Parera, "Mormon Town Planning: Physical and Social Relevance", Journal of Planning History, 4:155-74.
• Smith was a military leader: He led a failed attempt to invade Zion, Missouri, and led a war against the state of Missouri.
• Smith was a politician: He was mayor of Nauvoo, a minor U.S. presidential candidate, and was crowned the king of a shadow government.

COGDEN 02:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said above I'm amenable to the mention of "minor notabilities." But there's an implied spin to the flat descriptions proposed. Smith's town planning is interesting from a theoretical perspective, but on the ground, he was a disaster. Smith's political offices were all self-appointed; his three attempts at military posturing abject failures. Why not add a few descriptives such as "self-appointed political leader" or "king of a Mormon shadow government"? Once you take COGDEN's question seriously ("if you pretend that Smith didn't found a religion, what else, if anything, would he be notable for?"), the answer is obvious: polygamy.--John Foxe (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Polygamy might have a good foundation if Smith was unique in it; unfortunately, many of the greatest prophets of Christianity were polygamists. Dang it; I had when facts get in the way of a good argument. He also did not create polygamy; dang it two times. Was he the only polygamist in the US; oh well, dang it three times. Facts are so annoying when trying to write from a specific tone. Frankly, I hate it.

Town planner as a disaster? Hmm, is that your opinion or do you have a learned reference for such a statement? Dang it again. It appears that scholars are quite impressed with what he accomplished. Argh, I hate facts! Let's just omit it; this could appear complimentary and that is not acceptable. I know there must be a policy about this regarding Joseph Smith and the Mormons in general.

Military leader? Hmm. Does anyone know of anyone that organized a larger militia at the time? No. Does anyone know the history of this militia he started and how it was respected? Dang it, those facts keep haunting us. That failure thing must be right; I mean opinion is as good as facts. I know, let's just forget all the facts and spin it so the tone of these potentially perceived positive activities can be degraded. That seems to have worked with with the rest of the article. Surely, we can do it again.

Politician? One of the best standards for a politician is did the community support him? Agaithoseost damnable facts. Did he serve his people and attempt to protect them from the surrounding mobs and constant persecution? Only to the extent he could; except he never turned the militia lose on the mobs. Gosh, you mean he actually kept turning the other cheek even when his people were being killed? That is almost the actions of a true disciple of Jesus...I digress. Actually we could say tmilitiaiia was dysfunctionalnal that it could not protect its own people and its leader completely ignored the condition of his people. Yeah, that is the right spin. I feel better now. No need for balance, just spin it the way it should be. After all, Fawn Brodie taught us how to do that; write with a preconceived objective and ignore all conflicting facts. Thank God, we have a good example.

A shadow government? Oh you mean to build up the kingdom of God in preparation for the second return of Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind. Shadowy government is a much better spin don't you think? It is all how we word things and even Jesus' return can be turned into some nefarious action when ol'Joe Smith is mentioned. -^StormRider 12:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Good God StormRider - nice to know you can keep the discourse civil.--Descartes1979 (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@John Foxe: I think you can be notable in a field, even if you failed in that field. Failed presidential candidates are notable simply because they ran. Faisal Shahzad is a notable terrorist plotter even though he was really bad at it, and utterly failed to kill even a single American infidel. Joseph Smith never had any success as a military leader, but he was notable for losing the war with Missouri. He was also not a very good politician, as his mishandling of Nauvoo finances and eventually the Nauvoo Expositor crisis got him killed--but I think he was still notable for being even a bad politician and Hail Mary presidential candidate. But I think he was a successful, and at least notable, writer and town planner. His Book of Mormon is still in print and sells millions of copies. None of the towns he planned survive (except Nauvoo as a Colonial Williamsburg-like reenactment town), but I don't think that is because of some inherent flaw in their design. The basic design was copied by Brigham Young and became the model for Salt Lake City and countless Mormon colonies still in existence. COGDEN 20:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt our fellow editors will spring for calling Smith the author of the Book of Mormon. I think it's reasonable to call him a city planner without a descriptive adjective, despite my raised eyebrows at his plunking Nauvoo in a swamp. But also I think it would be appropriate to call Smith a "failed military leader" and a "theocratic ruler." What do you think about adding "advocate of polygamy" at the end? The sentence would read something like: "Smith was also a city planner, theocratic ruler, failed military leader, and a proponent of plural marriage."--John Foxe (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sure ASniper is going to jump on this, but I believe that Joseph Smith was not an open advocate of polygamy. He practiced in secret, and in public he denied it. Polygamy wasn't an open practice until Mormons had settled in Utah. To that effect, I think that "advocate" of polygamy is a stretch. If anything, "Practitioner" of polygamy, or "founder" of Mormon polygamy is more accurate. --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a voice of reason amid this silliness that this article has become. I cannot see anyone disagree that Smith kept his teachings about polygamy relatively secret. However, having it printed in newspapers does seem to make it one of the worst kept secrets there was. Also, at this time both men and women were sealed to men; women being the only ones that entered a marital relationship. What always is insinuated is that Smith has sexual relationship with the wives sealed to him, something that has never been proved and almost is certainly false. There was one comment from Smith that could be used to infer he enjoyed a sexual relationship with at least one of his wives other than Emma, but even that is sparsely supported. Those that did allege to have children from Joseph Smith have all prove to be false. To introduce the polygamy issue without at least explaining the sealing is too narrow and it would be unbalanced.

I did keep it civil, but it was more than just a little difficult. I find the degree of bias by Foxe and COgden to be completely unacceptable. It is worse that they both hide behind "it is only a historical approach" also to be unacceptable. It is a farce and I see little reason to treat this article as anything but an exercise of farce. Neither of them answer questions; neither of them provide a decent answer as to why this should be treated differently from all other similar articles. I am reminded of the three monkeys that see, hear, and speak no evil when dealing withotherss and both steadily twisting the "history" to meet a specifically biased objective. It is coming to the point that a POV tag will be added to the article. -^StormRider 21:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Bushman says that plural marriage was especially difficult for the younger women (ten of Joseph's wives were under twenty) because they might have suffered "disgrace if they became pregnant."(494-95)--John Foxe (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrap it up: second sentence of the lede

Most participants of the conversation have agreed that we should, or conceded that we could, include a second sentence in the first paragraph of the lede, mentioning additional aspects of Smith's life. The following aspects have been suggested:

• writer / author
• city planner
• (failed) military leader
• politician / theocratic ruler
• polygamist

I think most of us could agree to leave off writer/author due to the ambiguity of what Smith "wrote". His writings are notable for their religious content, anyways, and the idea of him being a religious leader is already portrayed. The phrase "failed military leader" is unheard of on Wikipedia, (contrast with "military leader") so I doubt it would be appropriate here. "Theocratic ruler" is also rare (slightly more common: "theocratic leader"), though this is understandable, (theocratic rulers are probably much rarer than failed military leaders) so I'm somewhat open to that wording. There's been hesitation to touch the subject (by everyone except Foxe), but quite frankly "polygamist" is also a big part of understanding who Joseph Smith was.

Therefore, I propose something along these lines for the second sentence: "He was also a city planner, politician, military leader, theocrat, and a polygamist." The idea struck me to say "He was also influential as..." to begin that sentence, but I have mixed feelings about that. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I recognize that Storm has stated, "To introduce the polygamy issue without at least explaining the sealing is too narrow and it would be unbalance", but I feel the situation is akin to "military leader" or any of the other descriptors: when you boil it down to the essentials, there just isn't room to explain it all. So if the reader is interested in the details, they can read on. If not, they must at least know that Smith did practice polygamy (for some definition of polygamy). The article does not (or should not) neglect to explain the nature of Smith's polygamy, but that doesn't mean we have room to cram it into sentence #2. <- replace the word "polygamy" with "military leadership", "political actions", or any of the descriptors mentioned, the base idea is the same. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We avoid the Joseph Smith as "author" issue if we say he was a "writer". Whether or not he was the "author" of the Book of Mormon, nobody disagrees he was responsible for writing it in English. If he was notable for anything other than founding a religion, it was for his writing the Book of Mormon. COGDEN 05:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with B's compromise wording. I'm of two minds about the author/writer business. On one hand, I hate to dignify what Smith did as writing. On the other, if calling him a writer helps exonerate God from association with such wretched English prose as the Book of Mormon, I'm for it.--John Foxe (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added the second sentence as presented above. As another step forward, I suggest splitting "sentence two" into "sentences two and three" like so: "He is most well known for producing the Book of Mormon and for practicing polygamy. He was also a city planner, military leader, politician, and theocrat." However, "most well known" seems awkward; is there a better way to phrase that? ...comments? ~BFizz 16:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

How about "Perhaps best known for producing the Book of Mormon and practicing polygamy, he was also..."?--John Foxe (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. I just want to make sure we can all agree on the phrase "producing the Book of Mormon". I like "produce" because it doesn't specify how it was produced; those who choose to believe in Smith's divine gift can infer that he "produced" it by translating it from ancient plates, while others can infer that he "produced" it by dreaming it up.

We might consider the phrase "dictating the Book of Mormon" instead, since that is, without question, what he actually did. However, among other reasons not to use that phrase, readers might be confused by our using the less-common meaning of the ambiguous word dictate. What do the rest of you think? ...comments? ~BFizz 17:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Delurking here. "Perhaps best known" is peacocky, "most well known" is awkward. How about "He is known for.."? tedder (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

@B, I'm comfortable with whatever you decide.

@tedder, I'm proud of them feathers even if I can't strut 'em here as much as I'd like.--John Foxe (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm satisfied with it as it is currently, sticking only to "He was also a theocrat, city planner, military leader, and polygamist." The Book of Mormon is mentioned right in the next paragraph, after all. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick comment before I also delurk for a while - I think the lede is still a little clunky - I made an attempt to make it more readable, which was sliced and diced in true wiki style. But I wanted to say really quickly, I am really impressed with the body of this article. Maybe its because I pay attention to articles that are more obscure, but the amount of referencing here is pretty amazing. I am sure this is because of the tension between editors sympathetic to Smith, and those critical of Smith, which I think is a good thing, and I think this is a testament to the success of the wikipedia model - out of the tension and consensus building we have on damn thorough article. So tip o the hat to all you guys, even if I get annoyed at you from time to time. --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. And let's give COGDEN praise where praise is due for all his careful referencing.--John Foxe (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The lede does not mention the mainstream view

mainstream view is that joseph smith was a conscious fraud. it is impossible to reconcile his laughable "scriptures" with history and/or common sense. but by all means, don't mention it in your lead, wikipedia; portray him as a "religious leader." lol 99.255.117.65 (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Feeding the troll here... I understand your take - but there are at least 6 million active Mormons that disagree with your POV. Sure it is a minority view, but then aren't most religions the same way? If we present the facts impartially and with an NPOV, the reader will have everything they need to make an informed decision.--Descartes1979 (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Further feeding the troll: It's true that the view that Smith was a supernatural prophet is a small minority view, and probably even a fringe view. However, there is no consensus that Smith was a conscious fraud. What Smith was is called by Jan Shipps the "prophet puzzle". Brodie suggests that he began with some element of deception but later came to believe what he taught. Vogel suggests that he was a "pious fraud"--believing in the religious and supernatural principles he taught, but not above a little dramatic deception in furtherance of the teaching, like some of the Christian faith healers of today. Quinn suggests that he was a straightforward and honest practitioner of a magic-laced religion. Since it is understood, from the lede, that only Mormons accept him as a prophet, I don't think we need to go into detail there on this complicated psycho-historical issue. COGDEN 19:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The mainstream view of the world is that Jesus was not the Son of God; should we state that in the Jesus article? If not, why not. Should every article state what only the majority believes? Is there a majority that believes any religion in the world? Since there is not, should we not state on every religious article that it is all bunk because of the majority of humanity does not believe it. The Virgin Mary would need the statement that it is a complete farce because the majority does not believe it. All recipients of Marian apparitions would also need this dis-qualifier. The Pope would need the warning phrase that he is a fop in a girls dress at best because the majority of the world does not think he represents anything but a figment of a minority's imagination.

Do you see now why this type of thinking on religion articles is not the brightest proposal? Can you understand that the purpose of the article is to inform; not toclarifyy that every religion is nothing but mythology in the minds of the rest of the world. This is stating the obvious. A religion is only important to its adherents. Just because Lutherans don't follow the pope does not mean they are wrong, it means they don't follow the pope. -^StormRider 18:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

First Vision caption

The words "more than ten years after founding the church" have been removed several times from the caption of the image that concerns the First Vision. This removal is an attempt to prevent casual readers from discovering a significant feature about Smith's First Vision: that there is no independent record of Joseph Smith having reported the vision for more than a decade after it supposedly occurred. In other words, removing those words is an POV attempt to remove helpful information for the casual reader, who will probably look at images first. Many individuals through the centuries have had visions of gods; rarely, if ever, have they concealed their visions for years. This aspect of Joseph Smith's behavior makes the words "more than ten years after founding the church" significant to the understanding of the casual reader.--John Foxe (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be concerned that the casual reader will not be led to a particular conclusion about the credibility of the First Vision account if that wording is not present. Yet it seems that omitting the wording is not likely to lead the reader to the opposite conclusion, so it seems that removing it on the stylistic grounds given will not offend NPOV. It's a level of detail appropriate for the article text but not a one- or two-sentence caption. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with Analyst. Image captions should be simple and relevant to the adjacent content. Foxe said, "this removal is an attempt to prevent casual readers from discovering a significant feature about Smith's First Vision". I can just as easily turn that around and say "this insertion is an attempt to force casual readers to discover an insignificant feature about Smith's First Vision". However, I don't think either of these two statements is entirely true; the feature is somewhat significant, but not significant enough (or rather, not relevant enough to the adjacent content) to be in this particular image caption. Suppose the same image were used in an article like Criticism of Joseph Smith, Jr. in a section critical of Smith's first vision claims. In that situation, the caption would be appropriate. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The words "more than ten years after founding the church" are not insignificant. No contemporary of Smith claimed to have heard him discuss the vision for more than ten years after it was supposed to have occurred. So far as I can tell, that makes Smith unique among historical figures who have claimed to see deity.--John Foxe (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments for the wording's significance address the credibility of Smith's claim, but its credibility is not the subject or purpose of the illustration or its caption. The caption without the wording does not say or imply anything about the claim's credibility, so there is no pre-existing POV that would need to be balanced by adding the wording. Also, "more than ten years after founding the church" is factually incorrect, isn't it? The church was founded in 1830, and Smith's best known public account of the First Vision is from 1838. alanyst 18:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a huge issue in my mind, but I can see how the current wording might be slightly misleading to say that Smith "reported that he had been visited by God the Father and Jesus in 1820." That kind of implies that he reported the vision in 1820. On the other hand, including a phrase that says "more than ten years after founding the church" clarifies things, but seems a bit gratuitous the way it is phrased, and is inaccurate in a different way, given that he did claim to have seen the two personages in 1838, though it was not published (reported?) until later. Maybe we just need a different approach. What about this: "Smith's later theology characterized the Father and the Son as two distinct "personages", as in this depiction of a vision Smith described in 1838." COGDEN 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. It feels a little awkward in its wording but has a lot else going for it: relevance, neutrality, and accuracy with respect to the article text. alanyst 21:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to tweak that a bit, how about "In Smith's later theology, he characterized the Father and the Son as two distinct 'personages,' as in this depiction of a vision he first publicly described in 1838"?--John Foxe (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

May I propose another angle? "Smith came to reject trinitarian views. He reported that during his First Vision, God the Father and Jesus appeared to him as two distinct 'personages'." I could see this with or without the first sentence, "Smith came to reject trinitarian views". As a matter of taste, I personally prefer not to refer directly to an image in its caption. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I want a reference to time or to a date. The casual reader should understand that Smith's exposition of the First Vision occurred very late in the game. How about "In his later theology, Smith characterized God the Father and Jesus as two distinct 'personages,' as in a vision he first publicly described in 1838"?--John Foxe (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I find that wording to be dissatisfying; it spends many words to accommodate the tangential point (when) rather than the main point (what). But if consensus deems the tangential point to be necessary here, I can live with it. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"When" is not tangential. The tardiness of Joseph Smith's public revelation is perhaps unique in the history of visions.--John Foxe (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

John, is there a reliable source that indicates that the timing of Smith's disclosure of the First Vision is essential to understanding Smith's theology and cosmology, or is the imperative you place on it coming from your personal views? Is the "tardiness...is unique in the history of visions" statement reflected anywhere in the scholarship or is this a novel argument? alanyst 04:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a pointed effort to interpret the later publication of Joseph Smith's first vision as some negative criticism. Again, I am personally quite comfortable now seeing the negativism so severe here. It actually makes it more likely fair-minded readers will look to sites such as lds.org for more reliable information on the subject. The louder you yell at people not to look at the elephant in the room, the more likely they'll be interested.

So why might Joseph have focused on a publication of his First Vision later in life? Those who know anything about his history will have read his canonized history. In his own words,

"Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them. I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me."

So remembering that Joseph Smith was persecuted (Murdered) for his religious beliefs from the moment he mentioned this vision, is it any wonder he focused more on the Book of Mormon and the organization of the Church than on his own revelation? Remember, the First Vision was a revelation whose intended audience was Joseph Smith, answering his questions. The other revelations he received, however were intended more specifically for the Church and the world. The fact he didn't walk around boasting about this sacred experience actually reveals a reverence.

In short, there's nothing to see here folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reconsidered my position after looking at the current caption, which mentions neither the First Vision nor 1820. That caption is about as NPOV as one could be, and it obviously has support of the community here. I'm satisfied.--John Foxe (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current text as well. I think the reason the image is used is to illustrate Smith's later theology. It's not so much about the vision itself. Although I think the current text is fine, I would also not be opposed to some indication that the image reflects Smith's later theology (rather than earlier, more trinitarian theology). COGDEN 22:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm entirely satisfied with the current text: "Smith reported that he had been visited by God the Father and Jesus, whom he described as two distinct 'personages'." I'm not opposed to the idea of mentioning this was Smith's "later theology", though I personally can't see a way to insert that detail without bloating the caption. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a stab at modifying the sentence without specifying when Smith abandoned trinitarianism.--John Foxe (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There may be a problem with the word "abandoned". It's the same issue that arises when we say that the LDS Church "abandoned" polygamy. It vaguely implies a kind of betrayal or retreat. COGDEN 18:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A further problem is that it implies that he was an outright trinitiarian initially, when I'm not sure that's been an established position in the reliable sources. Less is more in this case; the version without the bit about trinitarianism is superior to the one with John Foxe's good-faith addition. alanyst 18:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The caption now abandons both "abandon" and the Trinity, although there's now a rough date. What do you think?--John Foxe (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I still prefer the version that doesn't try to say anything about the timeline. It doesn't make sense to broach that topic in the caption when neither the illustration nor the nearby text expresses anything about it, and attempting to do so in an NPOV way makes for awkward wording. Best not to force it into a place where it doesn't fit. alanyst 19:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added the word "corporeal," to make the caption reflect both the illustration and the nearby text.--John Foxe (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The current version is quite good: As his theology matured during the late 1830s, Smith recalled a vision of God the Father and Jesus, whom he described as two distinct, corporeal "personages." I support this version as an acceptable alternative to the text I said I was "entirely satisfied" with. "Corporeal" was a particularly good addition, imho. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If there was a problem with a bloated caption before, we have it again. "As his theology matured during the late 1830s..." seems a bit much just for a caption, and the insertion of the word "recalled" seems leading. If the reader is curious to know more details about Smith's claimed experience depicted in the image they can read the article. There they will find information about the different versions of the First Vision story and the associated timeline.Rockford1963 (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree, Rockford. A few days ago it read clearly and simply enough. Now it looks very "bloated." The term, "As his theology matured" is wordy and confusing. What's wrong with the word, 'later'? Or the phrase, 'later in life'. I second the concern over the term, 'recalled.' I highly doubt Joseph ever forgot such a pivotal experience. Perhaps the term 'reflected' but not 'recalled.' This reads very negative POV. Canadiandy1 (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I've taken a stab at cleaning it up and simplifying it. Canadiandy1 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Smith is not WP:RS. WP articles need to be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy....Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."--John Foxe (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Smith is a reliable source, my edit simply stated that he "recorded" having seen a vision. Is there reasonable evidence to prove he is not the author of "Joseph Smith - History" as published in the Pearl of Great Price? I thought my edit was both clear and balanced. Please revert back. Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I agree that "Smith is not a RS" is a red herring here; it is certainly backed up by reliable sources that Smith did record that his vision occurred in 1820. However, if consensus determines to remove the 1830s detail, I recommend my previously-proposed wording (with a few optional tweaks), "Smith claimed to have seen God the Father and Jesus, whom he described as two distinct, corporeal 'personages'." Leaving off all dates seems to be sufficiently vague that all viewpoints could agree with it. I myself hold no strong opinion on whether to include or exclude the introductory phrase, "As his theology matured during the late 1830s". ...comments? ~BFizz 06:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

In this instance, it's a distortion to privilege Smith's claims over scholarship without including chronology because Smith said as a teenager he had seen God with flesh and bones and then taught that God was a spirit. A charitable implication is that Smith didn't understand what he had seen as a teenager until very near the end of his career; an uncharitable one is that he was a bold faced liar and blasphemer. The article text spells out the change in Smith's theology, and believers can't deny the problem. What they'd like to do is prevent the casual reader—the sort of person who grabs at the image captions and moves on—from understanding the difficulty with Smith's story. I don't blame them for trying to conceal such information, but I won't be a party to it.

@Canadiandy1: Are you, as you wrote above, "personally quite comfortable now seeing the negativism so severe here. It actually makes it more likely fair-minded readers will look to sites such as lds.org for more reliable information on the subject"?--John Foxe (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe, you're presenting a red herring. Smith's accounts of the First Vision did not affirm that God's corporeal nature was obvious to him as a teenager, but your argument depends on this for there to be some "difficulty" over the chronology of Smith's teachings on the nature of God with respect to his First Vision accounts. You're making your own inference and then saying the resulting "difficulty" is being concealed by believers in order to deceive the casual reader. That's insulting and a violation of AGF if you don't have evidence to back up that claim. alanyst 14:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That Joseph taught God had a tangible body does not exclude him from teaching God as also being a spirit. In LDS understanding a soul is the combination of body and spirit. Nothing to see here. Please revert. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I've changed it to read thus: "Smith said he had a vision of God the Father and Jesus, whom he described as two distinct 'personages.'" It's my good-faith effort at finding a wording that everyone can live with, that doesn't try to push any particular POV, and that still has relevance to the section it illustrates. alanyst 18:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith is not WP:RS. I have reverted with a citation to a scholarly source. The caption should make it clear that there's a problem with the story as Smith told it.--John Foxe (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I was not using Smith as a RS. It's well supported in the article text and reliable secondary sources that Smith said he saw God the Father and Jesus in a vision, and that he described them as two distinct personages. It needs no further citation, particularly in a caption. The wording I used is neutral and neither privileges nor impeaches Smith's claim. Your citation to Widmer is a reliable source (though I don't have the source on hand to evaluate how accurately you interpreted it), but there are other reliable sources (like Bushman) who draw different conclusions than Widmer. Bushman speculates that the timing and shift of emphasis in Smith's various accounts were due to some combination of teenage reticence, lack of confidence, fear of ridicule, and a changing perspective on its importance (see pages 39-41). I'm not saying that Bushman's right and Widmer's wrong—just that since reliable sources disagree, an image caption is not the place to address the dispute nor to favor one side or another, particularly when the illustration and context don't deal with the timing issue. I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, but the timing of the accounts of the First Vision is simply not relevant enough to the Views and Teachings section that it requires mention, let alone citation independent of the article text. (Also, Smith's later account was in 1838, not 1839 as you gave it.) alanyst 22:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no mention in the Bushman account that Smith saw God and Jesus as corporeal beings, so there is no conflict with Widmer.--John Foxe (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no mention in your citation of Widmer about God's corporeality, only the number of personages that Smith said he saw. Widmer's point apparently was that Smith's account changed over time, and he (Widmer) offered conjecture as to the reasons why. Bushman offers different conjecture as to the reasons for the timing and changes in Smith's account, and since the two scholars disagree, the job of Wikipedia is to describe the disagreement but not to take sides. Since doing so requires more discussion than an image caption can afford, and for the other reasons I've given above, the caption is not the place to address the issue. Besides, the fact that Bushman does not address the corporeal aspect bolsters my argument, since it shows that reliable sources do not see that aspect as inextricably intertwined with the timing aspect, which is your rationale for insisting on including it in the image caption. alanyst 23:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to include reasons why Smith may have changed his theology, only that he did change and that he never claimed to have seen God and Jesus Christ until after that change during the late 1830s. Scholarship (including Bushman and Widmer) agree on this point.--John Foxe (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

@Canadiandy1: Are you, as you wrote above, "personally quite comfortable now seeing the negativism so severe here. It actually makes it more likely fair-minded readers will look to sites such as lds.org for more reliable information on the subject"?--John Foxe (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, John. Neutral non-LDS contributors have now tried to make the caption more balanced, but since it keeps getting reverted to its present confrontational biased state, I am comfortable that the fair-minded reader will see through things and actually look at both sides of the issue. And the dark foil here is actually quite a nice compliment to the courteous and dignified treatment found elsewhere. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Rockford1963 has removed a caption earlier agreed on and removed the citation to an WP:RS without explanation. If we have to ask for mediation outside the group here, I'm ready to go that route.--John Foxe (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the change. I'm not seeing that any references were changed, and the explanation on the caption change were given in the edit summary. I'm not advocating one caption over another, but.. rationale was given and your rationale doesn't match. tedder (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I incorrectly assumed that Rockford1963 had removed the citation to Widmer. He didn't, but alanyst did with no WP:RS sources given. Even with Rockford1963's change, the caption did not reflect the citation, which emphasizes that Smith created the First Vision story in 1839. The time issue given in the citation either needs to be reflected in the text or another scholarly citation refuting Witmer should be provided. The matter is not irrelevant. I insist on a chronological reference or I'll ask for outside mediation. I've reverted one final time today.--John Foxe (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the addition of a source was the solution sought. The problem was clearly identified as a biased presumption and a wordy (bloated) caption. Canadiandy1 (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Indeed, no one is disputing the fact that Smith's teachings matured over time. The question is whether or not mentioning the various "when" details are important to this caption, in this section. I generally agree with what Analyst said earlier:

It doesn't make sense to broach that topic in the caption when neither the illustration nor the nearby text expresses anything about it, and attempting to do so in an NPOV way makes for awkward wording. Best not to force it into a place where it doesn't fit.

The footnote doesn't really fit. The "Smith's 1830s theology" detail does fit, but is not entirely necessary. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an lot of effort for such a minor caption. Here is the situation as I see it:

1. One side wants to omit details about time and context as irrelevant to the point of the caption, which is that Smith's ultimate theology included two deities with physical bodies.
2. The other side wants to include information about the time period and context, given that Smith did not arrive at his two-being Godhead theology until the late 1830s, long after the depicted vision.

Here's what I think: Dates are not necessarily relevant to the caption, as long as (A) it is clear that the theology depicted in the image is a theology from Smith's later period, and (B) the caption does not imply that the theology of the depiction is contemporaneous to the vision itself. There are a lot of ways to accomplish both A and B, and I don't really care which one. But here's a short and sweet suggestion: Smith's later theology described Jesus and God the Father as two distinct physical beings. If you prefer a little bit more elaboration: At first essentially trinitarian, Smith's later theology described Jesus and God the Father as two distinct physical beings, as shown in this artist's depiction of his first vision. COGDEN 03:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I still don't like the implied notion that Joseph Smith's theology "changed." While he may have communicated it with greater complexity in his later life, there is nothing I have seen or read which proves a changing theology. Enhanced, perhaps, but not changed. I would be comfortable with, "Smith described Jesus Christ and God the Father as two distinct physical beings." Of course, if you are looking to accept the LDS perspective, it would read more like, "Joseph Smith learned early in life that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father had bodies of flesh and blood." Yeah, I know it would be perceived as bias, perhaps as relatively biased as the caption now reads. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I am not sure the reference to Widmar's text could be considered "mainline" and possibly could be considered more fringe. The supposed "changing" or evolution of Smith's theology is debatable and there is certainly not a universal perception of an evolution. The Book of Mormon can be argued to support many different positions and that is the main point...it is debatable and there is no single position.

There is no bias in reporting Joseph Smith's own words, nor has there ever been a bias. It is bias to completely ignore his words and grasp fringee opinions that present opinion as fact. -^StormRider 05:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

While the debate may continue as to the proper caption I made a change to the simple version suggested by BFizz. I am not sure why a reference is made within a caption - shouldn't that belong to the text of the article?Rockford1963 (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with COGDEN that dates are not required but that it is necessary to note that Joseph Smith's theology changed over time, a change that's currently documented in the text and one about which all scholars concur. Let me also repeat that Joseph Smith is not a WP:RS; his words are of no value here except in so far as they agree with scholarship.--John Foxe (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate that you and COgden think that Joseph Smith's theology changed over time, but unfortunately that is a highly debatable issue. There is NO concensus among historians or theologians. Please provide your evidence that all "scholars" agree with your position. Joseph Smith is the ONLY reliable source about his life. Everyone that you have used, such as Widmar, provides only his opinions, avoids all contradictory information to his POV, and is, at best, a fringe position. Cheers. Repeating it does not make it any more true than when you first stated it, but if repeitition makes you feel better, by all means please go for it. -^StormRider 12:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not debatable among scholars. All scholars believe Joseph Smith's theology changed over time. Joseph Smith is not a reliable source at Wikipedia. I'll repeat those statements both because it makes me feel better and because those statements follow WP guidelines: "All scholars believe Joseph Smith's theology changed over time." "Joseph Smith is not a reliable source at Wikipedia."--John Foxe (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

John. I will repeat the concern which I voiced earlier and which you still have not addressed, John. My edit did not state anything which made Joseph Smith a source. It merely stated that Joseph Smith "recorded" that he saw God and Jesus Christ. Unless there is evidence that someone else shadow-wrote the Pearl of Great Price, or unless you actually want to attribute his words completely as the words of God and not his own, there is no reason my original edit was anything but fair, neutral, and clear. I say again, please revert. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I can't revert, Canadiandy, because my edit's already been reverted.

The question we're debating is not whether Joseph Smith said he saw God and Jesus Christ but whether he recalled/remembered/created this story to match the new theology he adopted in the late 1830s. The image appears in the section about Smith's theology, so we should note that Smith's theology about the nature of God changed during that period. All WP:RS agree that this change occurred, it's mentioned in the text, and it needs to be acknowledged in the caption. Otherwise, we're deliberately hiding useful information from the casual reader. As you said above, if the reader wants to discover the true story, it's easy enough to go to lds.org.--John Foxe (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right that it is a question, John. And until we know the answer we include what we know. We know Joseph Smith recorded that he saw God and Jesus Christ. It looks like I need to make the revert, thanks. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

We know there's no record that Joseph Smith ever mentioned seeing God and Jesus Christ until the late 1830s after he had changed his theology. About that all WP:RS scholars agree. The information appears in the text, why not in the caption?--John Foxe (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd nudge you (and everyone here) towards WP:CAP. While drawing the reader into the article with a caption is important, it isn't a DYK, so succinctness is also very important. tedder (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a fan of succinctness. Anything that should be said, can be said short.--John Foxe (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is an consensus among mainstream scholars, both Mormon and non-Mormon, that Joseph Smith's theology evolved. It began as "essentially trinitarian", and gradually developed into something roughly like the theology of 20th century Mormonism. There are numerous references to support this, many of which may be found in Mormonism and Christianity. Bushman agrees (see, e.g., p. 420: "By 1841, he had moved from a traditional Christian belief in God as pure spirit to a belief in His corporeality..."), Brodie agrees, and every other reliable source agrees. That Smith's theology evolved is not controversial among mainstream scholars.

But I don't think this issue has much to do with the caption. It is too much detail for the caption to positively explain that Smith's theology evolved. We can leave that for the main text. All I'm saying is that though the caption should be succinct, it should not be so succinct that it implies the fringe perspective that Smith's theology circa 1820 was of a godhood with two distinct physical beings as shown in the depiction. So that's why I propose something like "Smith's later theology described Jesus and God the Father as two distinct physical beings." COGDEN 18:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. (It also proves my point that better is usually shorter. COGDEN's proposal is fourteen words, four shorter than the current version.)--John Foxe (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel there are two important points to make in the caption. 1) Smith (in his later teachings) taught that the Father and the Son were two distinct beings. 2) Smith claimed to have seen them as separate beings (this is what the image actually depicts). While COgden's suggestion is an excellently succinct explanation of #1, it omits #2, and I therefore hesitate to embrace it. Foxe is hesitant to embrace any caption that includes #2 without making it clear that Smith did not consistently proclaim that such was the case. I hate to put yet another suggestion forward when we've already come up with so many, but I see nothing else to do until we can all settle on one. Smith eventually departed from trinitarian beliefs, claiming that God the Father and Jesus had appeared to him as two distinct physical beings. This version is quite similar to the abandoned trinitarianism version, but uses the softer phrase "eventually departed". I have mentioned various versions that I support; add this one to the list. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The devil is in the details. The phrase about Smith's "later" theology seems purposely placed to imply an inconsistent theology. I do not believe all of the sources on Joseph Smith are implying Joseph did not have his reported vision. In fact his own words suggest the vision occurred at the age of 14. So to state this was only a later theology is to straight out accuse him of fabricating his original vision. Yes, John, I am sure you believe that is the case, fair. But surely you can't argue every source on Joseph Smith "knows" that he fabricated his early vision.

Fair wording would simply drop the word 'later'. The article already entertains enough pointed criticism on the subject for those who are interested in such things.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Concerning the word 'corporeal.' As the caption now reads it seems to allude that this is Joseph's phraseology. Could we not use his own words if it is already neutrally identified as his own report. If not, it needs to read such that the term is clearly connected to the researchers/editors who have synthesized his words? For example,

Joseph's record of this vision identifies God and Jesus Christ as having what religious historians have termed 'corporeal' bodies.

Yeah, I know that wording sucks, but I think you get the idea. Indirect quotes are tricky things which is why I usually avoid them. Canadiandy1 (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

@BFizz, I don't think #2 is a necessary point for this particular caption in this particular section, but I think your suggestion is good enough.

@Canadiandy, I think you are leaping to conclusions. Noting that Smith's theology evolved is not an accusation that he fabricated his first vision. If a 14 year old boy has a mystical dream or vision, you can't expect him to fully understand its deep theological implications the instant he awakens from it. It takes time to process the experience and assign meaning to it. In Smith's case, it took about two decades of reflection. But that's beside the point, because nobody in mainstream academia questions whether Smith's theology evolved, and to imply otherwise gives WP:UNDUE prominence to a fringe theory. COGDEN 03:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

COgden,

I don't think I'm going to roll over on this one. Based on my understanding of the First Vision, I do not personally believe Joseph Smith's theology "evolved" or "matured." Consider the following insights from Milton V. Backman Jr.;

"On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820. Possibly he penned or dictated other histories of the First Vision; if so, they have not been located. The four surviving recitals of this theophany were prepared or rendered through different scribes, at different times, from a different perspective, for different purposes and to different audiences. It is not surprising, therefore, that each of them emphasizes different aspects of his experience. When Latter-day Saints today explain this remarkable vision to others, their descriptions often vary according to the audience or circumstances that prompt such reports. If one were relating the incident to a group of high priests, for example, he would undoubtedly tell it somewhat differently than he would to individuals who had never heard of the restoration of the gospel or of Joseph Smith.

In an important way, the existence of these different accounts helps support the integrity of the Latter-day Saint Prophet. It indicates that Joseph did not deliberately create a memorized version which he related to everyone. In the legal profession, attorneys and judges recognize that if a witness repeats an incident by using precisely the same language, the court might challenge the validity of such a statement."

Nobody could ever prove that Joseph Smith understood his experience any differently as he aged. Speculate, sure. That it was reported differently is to be expected. So I call bias when individuals want to use loaded language such as "matured" or "evolved." I still see no valid argument against simply stating that "Joseph Smith recorded having seen God the Father and Jesus Christ at the age of 14. He noted that they were distinct beings with tangible bodies." 173.180.109.246 (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

COgden, you and Foxe have provided no references that "all" or even "mainline", "majority" of historians and theologians have agreed that Smith's theology changed. Being a little familiar with the topic, I will also say a reference does not exist, but I am open to being corrected. It is only your opinion that such is the case and your and Foxe's repeitition of such a statement or position does not make it real or correct. I ask both of you to drop the phrase and just use it in other media.

The LDS Church does teach that Smith received revelation his entire life and expanded on concepts first taught. However, that is not the same thing as changed. Evolved may be accurate depending upon the context of the statement and its specific topic.

The proposition that it "changed" is debatable; there is no single answer or perspective. -^StormRider 06:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to get away from some theoretical debate between the words changed and evolved, which is irrelevant to this caption. The only issue relating to the caption is whether or not the caption should imply that Smith had a fully formed two-corporate-being theology in 1820 at the time of his first vision. WP:UNDUE says we have to refrain from implying this WP:FRINGE view. To do this, we have two choices: (1) we forgo using the first vision image to illustrate Smith's 1840s theology, or (2) we make it clear in the caption that the figure illustrates Smith's later theology--preferably as succinctly as possible. COGDEN 06:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

COgden, I apologize, but I continue to disagree with your premise. As I reflect on this progress of this discussion I am reminded of an analogy by B. H. Roberts when talking about another "historian" of the LDS Church:

"Mr. Wilson is as one who walks through some splendid orchard and gathers here and there the worm-eaten, frost-bitten, wind-blasted, growth-stunted and rotten fruit, which in spite of the best of care is to be found in every orchard; bringing this to us he says: "This is the fruit of yonder orchard; you see how worthless it is; an orchard growing such fruit is ready for the burning." Whereas, the fact may be that there are tons and tons of beautiful, luscious fruit, as pleasing to the eye as it would be agreeable to the palate, remaining in the orchard to which he does not call our attention at all. Would not such a representation of the orchard be an untruth, notwithstanding his blighted specimens were gathered from its trees? If he presents to us the blighted specimens of fruit from the orchard, is he not in truth and in honor bound also to call our attention to the rich harvest of splendid fruit that still remains ungathered before he asks us to pass judgment on the orchard? I am not so blind in my admiration of the Mormon people, or so bigoted in my devotion to the Mormon faith as to think that there are no individuals in that Church chargeable with fanaticism, folly, intemperate speech and wickedness; nor am I blind to the fact that some in their over-zeal have lacked judgment; and that in times of excitement, under stress of special provocation, even Mormon leaders have given utterance to ideas that are indefensible. But I have yet to learn that it is just in a writer of history or of 'purpose fiction,' that 'must speak truly,' to make a collection of these things and represent them as of the essence of that faith against which said writer draws an indictment.20

I see no need to attempt to introduce opinion as fact. There is not a consensus among historians or theologians that Smith changed his beliefs. What we know for a fact is that Joseph Smith stated he saw the Father and the Son as a lad of 14 years. To attempt to draw any other position is POV and misleading. Smith never stated that God the Father and the Son were one person. The Book of Mormon not only states that God is one, but that God and the Son are two separate persons. Context is vital to understanding any topic. To walk through the history of Joseph Smith and pick only the fruit that supports your positions is not honest and it is not serious scholarship. Yes, it does ressemble the rather deplorable objectivity found in Brodie's work, but it misses all the other fruit that evidences a different picture. I must concur with Roberts that seeking the worm-eaten fruit only and then attempting to judge the whole by this paltry picking, is lacking in justice and neutrality. -^StormRider 08:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

@Storm Rider, I think you are going far afield of the issue at hand. I think we should focus the discussion on this particular caption. In answer to your request for sources showing that Smith's theology began as roughly trinitarian and then evolved, please take a look at Mormonism and Christianity, and look in particular at Bushman, Alexander (who is probably the most cited reference), Kirkland, Ostler, White, and Widmer. Shipps (p. 80) cites this view with approval. Other sources, not cited in that article, include Melodie Moench Charles (Book of Mormon Christology, 1993), Hale (1978) [3], and Mark Thomas (Sunstone 5 (May/June 1980): 24-29). I am aware of no reliable source advocating the theory that Smith's 1820 theology was the same as his 1840s theology. If you are aware of one, please post it. Even if such an isolated reference existed, it would still be improper under WP:UNDUE to imply that perspective in the caption. COGDEN 09:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Was Smith’s theology different in 1840 than what it was in 1820? The answer is 'yes' in at least one sense, he knew more by 1840 and had a clearer picture of things heavenly, as he claimed he received through revelation. To infer that in 1820 Smith did not believe he saw two distinct personages, the Father and the Son, and later concocted this detail to flesh out his developing theology is pure conjecture. As mentioned by others in this discussion already - Smith not stating all facts in each statement he gave about the First Vision does not prove that later statements are incongruous with what he believed he experienced in 1820. The point made by StormRider is valid, there is no evidence that Smith said that the Father and the Son were the same person, and plenty of statements where he makes it clear they are two separate beings. Best leave the caption simple, and leave the details about timeline of First Vision statements to the main part of the article.Rockford1963 (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

How about simply removing the image, thereby finessing the problem of a caption?--John Foxe (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

COgden,

You wrote; "I am aware of no reliable source advocating the theory that Smith's 1820 theology was the same as his 1840s theology. If you are aware of one, please post it." From a few posts ago,. Milton V. Backman Jr.. Or try Richard P. Howard. Or Dean C. Jessee. Stormrider, I couldn't agree more with your last discussion. The thing that is most puzzling to me is the double standard. For example, Bushman is touted as bringing balance to the discussion because he is LDS. But then any LDS researcher who is even slightly courteous towards Joseph Smith's history is quickly dismissed as unreliable. Looks like Bushman is the metaphorical "bad apple" (though I don't doubt he is not a nice guy) that the negative critics scoured the orchard for, found, and now want to focus on solely (with the exception of the odd Brodie reference here and there). 173.180.109.246 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

The picture is one of the only images on the page that bears any semblance of dignity or "cheer." The other images (mostly two-tone, muddy, dark, or confusing) cry out for a little less gloom. There is nothing wrong with the image, just the cynical text it has been surrounded by. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Canadiandy, are you, as you wrote above, "personally quite comfortable now seeing the negativism so severe here. It actually makes it more likely fair-minded readers will look to sites such as lds.org for more reliable information on the subject"? If so, you ought to take my side; if not you ought to apologize.

I'm willing to eliminate the image, but I'm unwilling to have the caption suggest that Smith recounted the First Vision before the late 1830s, a notion that (pace Canadiandy) no WP:RS scholars support. How say you all?--John Foxe (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Bushman, in pages 39-40 of Rough Stone Rolling, says that Smith recorded the vision in 1832, 1835, and 1838: "By 1832, when he first recorded his vision..." "In 1835 he said that first one personage appeared and then another. In 1838, he reported that the first pointed to the other...." alanyst 16:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

@Rockford1963, my proposals for the caption merely contain a bare acknowledgement that the image reflects Smith's later theology. I don't think the caption should contain any kind of discussion or implication about how, or why, Smith's first vision stories are different from each other. I think that is a complex issue that is irrelevant for the caption. Lets put that issue aside, and deal specifically with concrete text of the caption.

@Canadiandy, again, the issue is whether the caption can imply that Smith's 1840s theology is the same as his 1820 theology, and I presented a pretty long list of preeminent academic references that say otherwise. That alone is sufficient to establish that the caption cannot make the above implication consistent with WP:UNDUE. But as an aside, I note that the Backman reference you cited is a religious article from the LDS Church's religious and devotional magazine, which is not a reliable academic source. Also, please note that some of the references I cited above, other than Bushman, are Mormon writers. COGDEN 19:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)