Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Angel Moroni

@InedibleHulk: Regarding the name of the angel, this was previously discussed at Talk:Joseph_Smith/Archive_20#Moroni_or_Nephi, where it was decided to say "an angel" with a piped link to Angel Moroni, though for different reasons than I'm arguing here. (There was apparently some confusion about the name of the angel.) My main concern is that the name of the angel is inconsequential, and I don't want to be burdening the reader with too many unfamiliar terms in the Lead section. I'm thinking along the lines of WP:JARGON where it says, "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do." For the same reason we use "polygamy" in the Lead instead of "plural marriage", and "religious collectivism" instead of "law of consecration". Wikilinking the words "an angel" instead of just "angel" hints that we're not just linking to Angel, and if the reader is curious they can just mouse over to see the angel's name. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not jargon, though, it's a proper name describing a particular angel. Like I said in the edit summary, it's as good as saying he founded a religion. And like I say below, not everybody wants to or is able to hover over a link. Obfuscation is rarely convenient. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Smith is notable because he founded Mormonism, so Mormonism is a very relevant term to use in the Lead. There's nothing that important about the names of the angel, who is only notable because Smith claimed to have seen him. I don't see what "obfuscation" has to do with anything. Here's a better example: Look at the Lead section of Muhammad. It says, "Muhammad is almost universally considered by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God to mankind.", not "Muhammad is almost universally considered by Muslims as the Khatim an-Nabuwwah sent by God to mankind." That's not obfuscation, but a service to readers unfamiliar with Islam. People understand "an angel" without having to wonder what a moroni is. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

And he founded the religion because the angel told him where to find the book that's central to the religion. Of course it's relevant that this wasn't Michael or Gabriel or Azrael. It's unfortunate that there's dispute over his "proper" proper name, but that doesn't prevent the Libya article from mentioning what's-his-name by agreed upon common name.

The last prophet thing translates an honorific description of a concept in a foreign language to English. That's not the same as anonymizing a proper name. There's no "a moroni", just plain Moroni. Pipelinking to hide disambiguators is always cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I keep getting the feeling that you think the name is being piped because somebody's embarrassed that the name looks like "moron". I can assure you that's not the case for me, and most of the "moron" related vandalism we get around here is people removing the second "m" from "Mormons". Anyway, if you insist, for whatever reason, on having Moroni's name in the Lead, let's at least call him "an angel named Moroni" instead of "the Angel Moroni" as if we expect the reader to already know what that is. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That wording is fine, but that pipelink is to a human named Moroni. He's an important Mormon figure, too, but (allegedly) died over a millenium before Smith lived, precluding a meeting. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The way the article pipes it (as of now) works fine, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, I accidentally linked to the wrong page in my example. (Call me Captain Moroni.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Fraud conviction?

How exactly is Smith not listed among Category:People convicted of fraud or Category:American people convicted of fraud? Karin Anker (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

If this is in regards to his 1826 court appearance, see ref 24 ([1]) as to why what occurred is still not well understood and therefore insufficient for the categorization. Or is there another argument for inclusion? --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That ref link is to mormon scriptures studies. Hardly NPOV in relation to legal matters. I don't think there would be a problem using that site as a source for the religious content, but the court case is a secular matter and the sources used should therefor lean towards court records or legal scholarship. Cros13 (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cros13: I don't think I understand your objection. Mormon Scripture Studies (MSS) is not affiliated with the LDS Church but bills itself as an experimental e-journal for collaborative, critical, and scholarly resources on Mormon foundational texts. If you read the essay, you'll note two things. First, the author of the essay, Dan Vogel, is an independent researcher and writer well-known in the field of Mormon Studies and hardly sympathetic to Mormons or Joseph Smith. Second, the essay leans heavily on the court records and other contemporary sources. Personally, I do have some reservations about MSS, not the same as yours, but unfortunately it is the only place that we've been able to find this essay, which editors from both sides of the POV spectrum have so far said is the best analysis on the subject. If you can find a better modern analysis from a more trusted source, please point it out. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The fraud charge is possibly talking about the banking charge in 1838. Referenced on this very wikipedia, and in Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman. I would argue that Josephs convictions and charges are relevant, NPOV, and should be included ZiffWarrior (talk) 17:28, 12th December 2016 (GMT)

Easter eggs in lead.

Try to be mindful of WP:EASTER when linking. Avoiding a connotation of a proper name is not worth depriving a non-clicking or print version reader of which certain angel, temple, bank or whatever we're talking about, particularly in the lead. Many people only read the leads, because they're busy. All the more reason to not invite them to an egghunt. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing some of those. I agree with most of the changes you've made, though I do still think the "an angel" link is just fine, and not an easter egg because it links the two words, not just "angel". The Kirtland Safety Society is anther one that's a bit problematic, I believe, but I am headed to bed at the moment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It definitely hints that something specific is under that link. That feeling of almost knowing must drive at least some printreaders a little mad. That "almost" part is why it's obfuscation. Maybe "the church-sponsored Kirtland Safety Society" would be best. "Bank" doesn't cover the "joint-stock company" aspect. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I could go for "the church-sponsored Kirtland Safety Society ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted the changes that had been made because I feel such changes ought to be thoroughly discussed before they are implemented. The name of the bank was originally meant to be "The Kirtland Safety Society Bank" but was altered when it failed to obtain a charter. The title thus became "The Kirtland Safety Society Anti- Banking Co." That is a matter of record. I also felt that the changes should be reverted because many of the "improvements" in wording changed the meaning entirely. I don't have time to go into specifics of what I felt was wrong about these edits, but, if given a few days, I feel confident I can provide any clarification needed. For now, I too must finish up my Wikipedia use for the day and also go to bed. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

So because the thing we're linking to wasn't actually a bank, it's best to call it a church-sponsored bank instead of by its name. I might need a nap, too, before that makes sense.

Thorough is fine, but if this means few-day breaks between you saying you have reasons and me hearing them, I'll forfeit now. The only thing more stifling than obfuscation is procrastination, and I can't make my simple point any simpler than I did in the first post. If most everyone still prefers wordiness, vagueness, euphemisms and half-truths when the sun comes up, that's fine with me. Just a general shame (on education) if the hiding here is rooted in shame.

If Wikipedia trusts its readers are mature enough to handle Dean Windass, Dick Trickle or Gaylord Silly, I'm sure it can trust those interested in the founder of Mormonism to not blow milk from their noses when they hear his divine messenger's name sort of sounded like "moron" or that God and money share a common few distinguishing words. In closing, Argel Fucks. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the changes made by Hulk as he made the links more direct and avoided the easter-eggisms of some.

the burned-over district of New York is much more descriptive of the time / geography than simply Western New York.

the Angel Moroni directed is specific - why would we say just an angel?

Each occurrence now is "an angel named [Angel_Moroni|Moroni]", one edit was mine. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I reverted on the ground that at first, Smith called the angel "Nephi"; so it's best just to leave it as it was, a generic angel.--John Foxe (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

of the expensive Kirtland Temple is much more meaningful than an expensive temple.

The text is now 'the expensive Kirtland Temple' (not my edit) --duncan.lithgow (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

the collapse of the Kirtland Safety Society says more than the collapse of a church-sponsored bank although perhaps a parenthetical (church-sponsored bank) could be added.

The text now reads 'the collapse of the church-sponsored Kirtland Safety Society' (not my edit) --duncan.lithgow (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

he became a spiritual and political leader - don't need "both"

he was killed when a mob stormed the jailhouse no quibble either way on this.

His teachings include... vs His teachings include... - no quibble either way on this either.

Vsmith (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

For the most part I also agree with InedibleHulk's changes, and am concerned that Jgstokes's revert smacks too much of WP:OWN even though I'm sure it wasn't intended that way. InedibleHulk's changes were incremental refinements of wording and linking, and it's not the Wiki way to have to ask permission in advance to do that kind of thing. If it were a significant revision or addition of contentious material it would be different, but that's not what we have here. Since Jgstokes has indicated they will be offline for a while, I will undo that revert (only once, to avoid an edit war) and concerns with individual changes can be dealt with one by one. alanyst 14:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, alanyst, I think I beat you to the "save" button :-). diff I basically reverted to Hulk's revision with a couple tweaks to try to compromise on stuff like the Kirkland Safety Society and Angel Moroni. Agree that any future edits should be tweaks of individual links, not wholesale reverting. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I snooze, I lose; but I like your additional tweaks on top of the re-revert better anyway. alanyst 14:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

comment: i support the revised text (initiated by hulk) for its greater clarity; but i don't GET what the concern is over "Avoiding a connotation of a proper name"? is this something to do with the mormon faith? i was not aware that there was some wp policy or style thing about "thou shalt not use Proper Names in the introduction"? o__0 (also, thank-you for supporting me about restoring the smith family photo) Lx 121 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

My impression is that the argument about avoiding connotation is a straw man based on the assumption that the name Moroni was being avoided because it looks like moron. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It's only a straw man if it's not based on an honest mistake. I also assumed "burned-over district" had a hellish vibe, and there's something unbecoming (to someone) about the temple/company names. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I support removing the "easter egg" links whenever practical, especially in the lede. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Word choices

I think it is, in fact, appropriate to refer to Smith's murder by the mob as a lynching - it was an extrajudicial execution or killing by a mob of people operating outside the law, preventing the Smith brothers from being tried. The men in the mob painted their faces to hide their identities. It is a classic case of a lynching. The governor said that some people "expect more protection from the laws than the laws are able to furnish in the face of popular excitement." "Popular excitement" shows that the lynchings were an expression of the society's will to suppress these men.Parkwells (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"Lynching" accurately describes Smith's death. So does "murder". I've seen "assassination" used in reliable sources. "Killing" can be fine in some contexts, depending on the need. From a believer's standpoint, "martyrdom" can be appropriately used. There are lots of different words that can be used to describe Smith's death; often, it's just a question of which word works best in the particular context. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "lynching" is a good descriptor of what happened, but I'm not convinced it was the best way of writing it in that particular paragraph. In my revert [2] I changed

...he was lynched and killed when a mob stormed the jailhouse.

to

...he was killed when a mob stormed the jailhouse.

I think both of these phrasings convey the same information, except that the former is redundant and inaccurately implies that something was done to him before he was killed (eg. hanged, tarred and feathered). For the purposes of this article I think the most clear and simple way of putting it is that Smith was killed by a mob, as this avoids the ambiguities and possibly misleading associations people have with the word "lynching". I believe this is in harmony the intent of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions that lack precision and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Words that may introduce bias. ~Awilley (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Also note that I'm not entirely opposed to using the word "lynch". If you wanted to say that "he was killed when a lynch mob stormed the jailhouse" to differentiate between the different kinds of mobs I'd be ok with that. ~Awilley (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Criminal Convictions?

Correct me if I am wrong, but why isn't there anything regarding his criminal convictions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WareMiekal (talk • contribs)

@WareMiekal: that's a controversial (and relatively complex) subject, because there is some disagreement as to whether Smith was ever convicted of a criminal offense. There is some evidence of an 1826 conviction, but it's disputed. There is an article about Smith's involvement with the justice system: Joseph Smith and the criminal justice system. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

So why is there no reference to the controversy? Angryskeptic (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

by that I mean the article is overly vague about it and euphemistic Angryskeptic (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. What wording are you proposing, and where? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I recently added a line of content referencing Joseph Smith's criminal history and it was quickly taken down 5 times. Even minor references are being removed, so I'm not sure how to get the relevant historical criminal information into his article. This is what I posted: During the following years, Smith had multiple encounters with the criminal justice system. zammiez8(talk) 17:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

My objection to the addition (and I think other users' as well) was the fact that it was being added into the lede section of the article. I don't think the multiple encounters with the criminal justice system are notable enough to warrant a mention in the lede. The encounters are not among the several principal reasons that Smith is a notable person. I think it might be better if you post here how you want to incorporate it into the article. At this stage, I propose that maybe adding a link to Joseph Smith and the criminal justice system to the "see also" section might be a good place to start. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Then why not have another section called "controversies" outlining the accused convictions, and then explaining that there isn't much evidence to suggest that he was convicted? WareMiekal (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a question of emphasis and importance. Practically everything Smith did and everything he claimed was and is controversial. In the scheme of his entire life, the fact that he may or may not have been convicted of a criminal offense in early adulthood is low on the list of what is controversial about him. I think that some people do focus on the criminal question, usually in an attempt to assist in discrediting the other things Smith claimed, but the criminal convictions are by no means the center of the controversy about him. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we add a "Criticism" section as has been done for other figures (Muhammad for example )? That would be the ideal place for these things, and would follow other precedents set on other articles ZiffWarrior (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Polygamy

On the subject of "eternity-only" sealings, Bahooka reverted my definition of them as "a sexless relationship where the couple would only be husband and wife after death" asking "which of those sources implies this?" This is spelled out by Brian Hales (one of the cited authors) seeking to show that Joseph Smith may not have had a sexual relationship with some or all of his plural wives. I don't agree with all of Hales' conclusions, but that is what is meant by an "eternity-only" sealing: that it would only have effect in eternity and so they couple is not sealed in earthly life. Hales gives essentially the same definition on his publicly available website.

If my definition is not suitable, I suggest that we either find a better one or remove the mention of eternity-only sealings. Without an explicit definition, this sentence will not be understood by the layman. stvltvs ^(talk) 22:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the further discussion. The way the edit was made, right before the citations and using the term "implies", it appeared that the sources supported that. I don't have access to most of those sources so I couldn't tell if they explicitly supported that or if it was a personal conclusion. That was why I reverted it and it will be interesting to hear the opinions of others here. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I see that the way I used the word "implies" might present this as more black and white than I intended. Perhaps it would be better to say "which some scholars have taken to mean". Since it includes citations at the end of the sentence, I don't think this would be weasel words. stvltvs ^(talk) 23:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Moroni / Nephi

Bumping the previously archived commentary on this:

I suggested that the name Moroni not be used in the lead text because of the variant use of the name "Nephi." The 1842 version reads: "Immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air.... He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi; that God had a work for me to do." The 1851 edition of The Pearl of Great Price reads "He called me by name and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." In the 1832 account, Smith does not call the angel by name at all; instead "the angel of the Lord" tells him about plates engraved "by Maroni." So if the angel spoke about Moroni, he shouldn't be Moroni.--John Foxe (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK - fair point, Foxe. What say everyone? Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC) I would say that the most pertinent name to use depends on what the various LDS denominations believe and teach at this time. For the LDS Church, the current edition of the Pearl of Great Price teaches that it was Moroni that appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith. This teaching is substantiated by Church History in the Fulness of Times and the 2012 Deseret News Church Almanac. What do other Latter Day Saint denominations currently teach? If it were just the LDS Church under discussion, I would say to use Moroni. But where there are other denominations involved in the Latter Day Saint movement, some consensus should be reached based upon the current teachings of all religions affiliated with the movement. Good idea, or not? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC) It isn't clear why the April 1838 history said "Nephi." The name of the angel had been identified in church publications as "Moroni" as early as 1835, and Smith explicitly identified him as Moroni in July 1838, just a few months after he wrote his 1838 history. Maybe Smith believed he saw both Nephi and Moroni. Maybe he got confused. Maybe he changed his mind one way and then back again. I don't have a big problem using the name "Moroni," but at one point in the history of the article I think we just said "an angel" an linked to the angel Moroni article. COGDEN 00:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Good point. I hadn't thought of that. That being the case, I can now definitely say I am more in favor of using the name Moroni. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC) As to what other denominations use/teach: the Community of Christ typically highlights the discrepancy between the 1838 version and the other versions. It doesn't really take a position on why the discrepancy exists: it just notes that there is one. In the Wikipedia context, I don't have a problem with it just saying "an angel", but I suppose it should still link to Angel Moroni, since that's the article that talks about the angel identified by Smith. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to reconsider this. The article is about a historical figure, not about the current interpretations of his work. The article does say "according to Smith...." so it should surely state Nephi instead of Moroni as that is what Joseph claimed. Anything else is simply untrue. It could mention that Moroni is the currently taught version, but that would be better written in the article on current Mormonism, no? ZiffWarrior (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Made the change in the article from Moroni to Nephi. Would also consider changing back to Moroni and replacing "According to Smith" with "According to Smiths successors" or similar wording, as intellectually honest and true, unlike the current version which is patently misleading. ZiffWarrior (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the change. As noted in the conversation almost five years ago, it's much more complicated than that given that the angel was referred to as Moroni in church publications in 1835 and by Smith in July 1838. Therefore, "according to Smith..." could go either way. If anything, from the previous discussion you bumped above, "Moroni" would be the consensus and a new consensus would need to be established before making the change you suggest. Up until a little more than a year ago, the lead just said "an angel" wlinked to Angel Moroni as a compromise, hence what I've reverted it to. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to have a reversion war on this but it's simply untrue to say "According to Smith...." and "Moroni". There are NO sources directly attributable to Smith that say Moroni was the angel, but there are sources that say Nephi. I hope you won't require me to trot them out? If you require Moroni to be the angel, then it needs to not say "According to Smith". I have made the change to say "According to moden interpretation..." instead. ZiffWarrior (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that the "according to Smith" part was originally included to satisfy those who did not want the visitation of an angel to be stated as unconditional fact in the article. It was not written with reference to the identity of the angel, I don't think. I suppose it can be read that way. Anyway, there are some sources that Smith was responsible for that identified the angel as Moroni, some that identified it as Nephi: sources are in this section. (In particular, isn't the Elder's Journal reference directly attributable to Smith?: [3]. It seems arguable at least.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely arguable. That is a very interesting source. Editor is Don Carlos Smith so you could argue that Joseph didn't write this, but he would have had an ooportunity to correct it if wrong, and I'm not aware of any corrections. I think, then, that we can revert to Moroni in the summary section using this as a source. Thanks for your research. What do you think about adding a "Criticism" or "Controversy" section as per other major religious figures (e.g. Muhammad)? The Moroni/Nephi issue could be referenced there. Would be less prominent than in the heading, which seems fair, given this source, but would be included in the overall article which also seems fair and NPOV given that this is a weaker source. Excluding seems decidedly not NPOV ZiffWarrior (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I like the style of the Muhammad#Criticism section, as the content is obviously too long for inclusion in the biography page. What about a crosslink to Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Criticism of Mormon sacred texts, perhaps under Joseph_Smith#Impact or Joseph_Smith#Views_and_teachings? Deaddebate (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes that would perhaps be a good compromise. I can see adherents of Church of Christ or other branches of Mormonism contending a link to Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Criticism of Mormon sacred texts would be too narrow a focus to cover the issue. On balance though, Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seems the nearest option ZiffWarrior (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Another source that is pretty easy to attribute to Smith is the 1835 edition of the D&C 50:2, which identifies Moroni as revealing the book of Mormon to Smith. See also The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph which recounts a discourse where Smith in 1839 identified Moroni as an angel and as the one that delivered him the Book of Mormon. Therefore, again I don't see "According to Smith..." to be incorrect given the sources we have. Now it would be better to have a secondary source, a scholarly source that addresses exactly this concern, but barring that we can make do with secondary sources (The Joseph Smith Papers and The Words of Joseph Smith) that we can trust to at least report the primary sources. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

the logic here is a little flawed - the most original source material says Nephi. Yes, you can justify Moroni based on some weaker evidence, but Nephi is clearly the NPOV most reliable for what Joseph Smith himself taught. There is more evidence that Joseph Smith taught Nephi, certainly stronger evidence than there is against. It's only controversial because the modern LDS church teaches Moroni, but that's hardly a reason to include it in a historical Wikipedia article ZiffWarrior (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Undoing the revision because there are "some" secondary sources for Moroni, but ignoring the primary sources saying Nephi is not okay. It is not intellectually honest. It's not right. It cannot truthfully state that "Smith" said it, we need a better compromise here ZiffWarrior (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, you have a source that predates the 1835 D&C statement? We have two statements directly attributed to Smith (D&C 50:2 in 1835 and the Elder's Journal in 1838) and an 1839 account by a third party of a discourse he gave that says "Moroni". Since you have yet to produce a source, I can't say whether these are weaker or stronger than your "Nephi" sources, but I would bet the first two are just as strong. What are your sources that say "Nephi"? Please feel free to "trot them out" and give us the courtesy of applying a similar rubric against them.

However, the statement as it stands in the article is IMO NPOV enough to accommodate both possibilities - "According Smith .... an angel". This statement will be true for the sources that say "Moroni", for the sources that don't give a name to the angel, and for the sources that say "Nephi". Perhaps you object to the wlink to Angel Moroni? Note that this is a separate article from Moroni (Book of Mormon prophet). One of the reasons for this is the Moroni/Nephi debate, and because of WP:COMMONTERM it is titled "Angel Moroni".

Saying "According to modern interpretation..." also doesn't work because there are several sources contemporary with Smith that named the angel "Moroni", for example Mormonism Unvailed, Oliver Cowdery on a number of occasions, even Orson Pratt who, commenting about the use of "Nephi" in one of the sources I'm sure you'll mention, says that it should have been "Moroni" and attributes it to carelessness of the historian/transcriber. Hence, the name "Moroni" is not strictly a modern interpretation.

But the biggest challenge and frustration in all this is that we don't have a good secondary source in all this. This discussion so far is going back and forth based on primary sources. The result of the previous consensus discussion resulted in the simple "According to Smith... an angel" wording. Consensus can change, but I don't think we are there yet and I don't think we'll be able to do better than the previous consensus without a good secondary source on the matter. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - one other thought. If this were to go into a criticism section, IMO we would need a critical source that identifies this as an actual criticism of JS. Too often criticism sections and criticism articles become smorgasbords for every editor to throw in their own feelings of what criticism they have with regards to the subject (citing primary sources) which inevitably leads to the apologist editors to add their own rebuttal (citing primary sources), and back and forth ad ridiculum. It's better to avoid this and stick to reliable secondary sources of both critics and apologists. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. There are plenty of secondary sources for criticism. ZiffWarrior (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I honestly think that a lot of this is way too much weeds for this article. The name of the angel is not that significant in terms of his life and what people will be seeking out of this article. It's much more appropriate for an article like Angel Moroni. Why not just avoid the issue altogether rather than calling him by a name. Instead of "Smith said that in 1823, while praying one night for forgiveness from his sins, he was visited by an angel named Moroni", just write "Smith said that in 1823, while praying one night for forgiveness from his sins, he was visited by an angel, later identified as Moroni". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No "Criticism" Section

Where is the criticism section and why is it absent from this article? 156.34.44.5 (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

See WP:CRITICISM. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joseph Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630162324/http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0%2C1249%2C600137517%2C00.html to http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0%2C1249%2C600137517%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071113034023/http://deseretnews.com/article/1%2C5143%2C695226318%2C00.html to http://deseretnews.com/article/1%2C5143%2C695226318%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060725191602/http://mha.wservers.com/pubs/TOC/05_July_Journal_TOC.pdf to http://mha.wservers.com/pubs/TOC/05_July_Journal_TOC.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826024132/http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5321 to http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5321

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Handsome Lake

The above page states (with refs) that Smith's visions bore some similarity to Handsome Lake's, and that they were contemporaries who lived in the same part of the world. A mention in this article would be fitting, if someone has the patience to weave it in there. 70.30.100.138 (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Oops! The mention I described is actually in the article Longhouse religion, which was founded on the basis of Handsome Lake's revelations. 70.30.100.138 (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Do we need a section on slavery?

Currently we have one paragraph about Smith's views on slavery in the section about "Political views". This is, in my view, WP:DUE WEIGHT for the subject, since slavery wasn't a major part of his teachings. However, there is an effort to expand this paragraph and give it a level-3 section header of its own, outside the Political views section. diff

From my reading of the sources, Smith generally opposed slavery, but wrote an anti-abolitionist letter to the editor in 1836. Later part of his presidential platform was to abolish slavery and compensate slave holders. The recent edits distort this, making it sound as if Smith was pro-slavery and only changed his mind after moving to Nauvoo. The sources indicate that it is the 1836 letter that is out of step...he opposed slavery both before and after that.

The edits also falsely state that the anti-abolitionist letter was an "official church statement" probably because the author accidentally conflated it with the church's official position in 1835 that they would not attempt to proselytize slaves without the permission of their masters. (D&C Section 134:12)

A side note about the 1836 letter: it was actually an indirect response to a committee in Clay County that voted that the Mormons must leave the county in part because "they [Mormons] are non-slave holders, and opposed to slavery; which, in this peculiar period, when abolition has reared its deformed and haggard visage in our land, is well calculated to excite deep and abiding prejudices." (The letter didn't convince anybody, and the Mormons ended up leaving Clay County.) (Bushman pp 327-28) ~Awilley (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley:

• Matthew L Harris; Newell G. Bringhurst (15 November 2015). The Mormon Church and Blacks: A Documentary History. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-09784-3.
• Review in Church History (journal): [4]

If you have a RS that disputes the cited material, that should be added obviously. The source says "The fourteen-year period commencing in 1830 with the birth of Mormonism and concluding in 1844 with the assassination of Joseph Smith Jr. was a critical time for emerging Mormon attitudes and practices affecting African Americans." So the section is DUE WEIGHT. zzz (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: But this article isn't about Mormon attitudes and practices affecting African Americans. The book you cite is useful for determining how much weight to give Joseph Smith's views in the Black people and Mormonism article, but it's not useful for determining how much weight to give to slavery in the Joseph Smith article because it's not about Smith. Yesterday I checked the index of Bushman's biography on Smith (the best subject-specific source we have available) and Slavery came up only 3 times: twice in reference to the presidential campaign platform, and once mentioning the letter to the editor in the context of the Mormons being expelled from Clay County. One paragraph in the Political views section is plenty of weight for that. ~Awilley (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Awilley You have reduced it to "Smith published a pro-slavery essay in 1836 but later opposed the practice." This is clearly different from what the RS says (which you removed). I have tagged the article for neutrality. zzz (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I simply restored the longstanding consensus wording that had been in the article for years, and which you still haven't demonstrated is incorrect. The source you linked says the following:

"Joseph Smith went through a threefold change of position: (1) initial opposition during the early 1830s; (2) support for slavery by the mid-1830s, evident in a strong anti-abolitionist position; and (3) by the mid-1840s, a return to an antislavery position, most dramatized by his 1844 presidential platform."

Aside from leaving out his early opposition to slavery (which your edits also did) the current wording is in harmony with your source. Rather than trying to hold the article hostage with POV tags, perhaps we should seek a 3rd opinion. ~Awilley (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The "initial opposition" mentioned in the introduction of the book I omitted because no example is given, and no further mention of "opposition" in the later chapter, where it explains that he avoided the subject entirely. You are free to add that or any other bits you think are necessary. The current version in the article is not remotely neutral, obviously. I cannot agree that it should remain so because of your opinion of what is due weight, which flies in the face of reality. zzz (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

My "opinion" of due weight? I used the highest quality source available for my argument and thoroughly debunked yours. By your logic we could use Michael Quinn's book Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A MORMON EXAMPLE to insert a new section titled "Same-sex relationships" into this article. Would that also be WP:Due? It might also help if you explained your definition of "neutral" and why the summary currently in the article falls short of that. What seems obvious to you might not be so apparent to others. ~Awilley (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You have "thoroughly debunked" nothing. Your argument seems to be that we can only have one pargaraph about slavery (including one half of one sentence about his support for slavery), and not two, because of your precise judgement on its DUEness -and as a result the article will just have to be incomplete and misleading, and thereby minimise Smith's support for slavery. This is clearly your POV, but it is not supported by the RS. Furthermore, you appear to be using WP:DUE inappropriately as a means to promote this biased view in the article. zzz (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, that is not my argument at all. I am saying that the weight we give the topic of slavery in this article should be proportionate to the weight it gets in reliable sources about Smith. Compare this to the topic of polygamy. That often gets a chapter in sources, so we give it a section in this article. Slavery gets only a couple of paragraphs in the 560 page book I cited above, so it should not be getting an entire section in this article. ~Awilley (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, the RS clearly states it was "a critical time", so if two paragraphs are required for a neutral summary of the topic, as opposed to an obviously biased and misleading one, then that is obviously what is required. If we were talking about several paragraphs then DUE might not be totally irrelevant, which it is in this case. zzz (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"I've got a book that barely mentions it" is clearly not a satisfactory reason for keeping biased and misleading info in the article, and I do not see any other argument being made here to delete the new material. zzz (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The standard for determining what is WP:DUE Weight is how much reliable sources discuss a particular topic. This is a biographical article about Joseph Smith, and the "book" I brought to the table is the leading biography of Joseph Smith. Clearly relevant. Meanwhile, your source is a book about the Mormon Church and Blacks that mentions Smith, but is certainly not about him. That is not a good source for determining what is WP:DUE in this article. Does that make sense?

You still haven't explained what you find to be biased and misleading. The paragraph is representative of the sources. While it might not be representative of your personal viewpoint, that doesn't make it biased. Could you please take a minute and explain in detail what is biased about the paragraph, and what its shortcomings are? That would help immensely in framing a compromise. ~Awilley (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said already, you want to minimise Smith's support for slavery. Half a sentence of text to cover about half a dozen pro-slavery years is pretty blatant. "The standard for determining what is WP:DUE Weight is how much reliable sources discuss a particular topic"- well, the source under discussion, and the sources it cites, extensively discuss that particular topic, so that seems to entirely defeat your own argument. zzz (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to minimize anything. I want the article to reflect reliable sources in form and substance. And as I've said, the source you cited is not a source about Smith specifically, so it can't be used to determine weight in this article. It's like saying that there are reliable sources about Mitt Romney that also talk about Joseph Smith, therefore we should include a section about Mitt Romney in the Joseph Smith article. That's not how it works. ~Awilley (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I made some changes to the paragraph trying to take into account the changes you made when you split it off into its own section. Here it is as it currently stands:

On the issue of slavery Smith took different positions over his lifetime.[297] Initially he was against it, but during the mid-1830s when the Mormons were settling in Missouri (a slave state) Smith changed his position, writing a strongly anti-abolitionist essay in 1836.[298] In the early 1840s after the Mormons had been expelled from Missouri, he opposed it again, and in his presidential campaign, he proposed ending slavery by 1850 and compensating the slaveholders for their loss.[299] Smith said that blacks were not inherently inferior to whites and he welcomed both freemen and slaves into the church.[300] However, he opposed baptizing slaves without permission of their masters, and he opposed interracial marriage.[301]

Could you let me know which parts of this you see as not being in accordance with reliable sources? ~Awilley (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You have removed the reliably sourced biographical info explaining his actions. Why? In order to minimise his support for slavery. You also again arbitrarily replaced the 1935 official church statement - source: "By the mid-1830s, however, Joseph Smith shifted his position, affirming support for slavery, doing so in an official 1835 church statement" - with a 1936 "essay". Probably, to minimise his support for slavery. Which is an unacceptable reason, obviously. zzz (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that an entire section of slavery is undue weight for a biography of Joseph Smith. Remini's biography is another well-known biography and only mentions Smith's views on slavery briefly when discussing his presidential candidacy. The Harris reference is certainly good for providing a summary of his views, but being a specialized study of "The Mormon Church and Blacks" gives us no context for the due weight of his slavery views relative to his other views and teachings. For that, we have to determine due weight from broader biographies of Smith, which, as is argued by myself and another editor, only supports a brief mention under political views. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

FyzixFighter Multiple reliable sources discuss this in detail, and attach very great weight to it. Which you would know if you had read this thread before giving your opinion and reverting. So the article needs to provide a brief summary. Unless the aim is to run a PR operation, in which case, it does make sense to remove the reliable sourced info. zzz (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@zzz, The sentence about the 1835 official church statement is false as far as I can tell. There was no official 1835 church statement affirming Smith's support for slavery. I don't know where you're getting that from, but you haven't provided any sources for it. As far as I can tell you are mixing up the official 1835 directive that missionaries should not proselytize slaves without permission from their masters with the 1836 essay/letter. ~Awilley (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Here’s what your source says about the 1835 declaration:

“Joseph Smith and other church spokesmen more directly addressed the issue of slavery in an August 1835 official declaration, stating that it was not “right to interfere with bond servants, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters,” nor “cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life.” LDS officials ultimately placed this statement in the ‘’Doctrine and Covenants’’ as Section 134:12 under the title “A Declaration of Belief Regarding Governments and Laws in General.” Prompting Smith to issue this seeming pro-slavery statement was his desire to avoid identification with the fledgling abolitionist movement rather than a desire to embrace the South’s particular institution.

That does not support your edit that Smith supported slavery and took a strongly anti-abolitionist stance, publishing an official church statement affirming that position in 1835. Also for reference, the full text of the 1835 "declaration" is this:

We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.

That falls short of a declaration of support for slavery. ~Awilley (talk)

Here's what the source says, in case you didn't already know: "By the mid-1830s, however, Joseph Smith shifted his position, affirming support for slavery, doing so in an official 1835 church statement". You, an admin, are actually saying that your interpretation of a primary source shows the reliable source is wrong. This has devolved even further. zzz (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You are only quoting part of the sentence. The full sentence is, "By the mid-1830s, however, Joseph Smith shifted his position, affirming support for slavery, doing so in an official 1835 church statement (discussed in the previous chapter)." The parenthesis you left out is a direct reference to the excerpt I quoted above, on the previous page, which calls it a "seeming pro-slavery statement" and says that it was prompted by a "desire to avoid identification with the fledgling abolitionist movement rather than a desire to embrace the South’s particular institution." That's not my interpretation of anything, that's a direct quote from the source. Not being an abolitionist is not always the same thing as being pro-slavery — it's a spectrum, not a dichotomy, and from what I've gathered from the sources Smith spent his life vacillating around the middle. ~Awilley (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• "You are only quoting part of the sentence". I missed out "(discussed in the previous chapter)." That changes the meaning? Ok, here's what the source says in full "By the mid-1830s, however, Joseph Smith shifted his position, affirming support for slavery, doing so in an official 1835 church statement (discussed in the previous chapter)." See the difference? Hint: there is no difference. It's a link you click on to go to the previous chapter.
• "the previous page, which calls it a "seeming pro-slavery statement"" So a statement affirming support for slavery was a seeming pro-slavery statement, and that proves it can't be because admin AWilley says the source is wrong and he has worked out it is also not actually saying what it is trying to say. This is beyond a joke. zzz (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The point is that it requires a selective reading of the source to say that the 1835 publication was a declaration of support for slavery. I took some time today to see what Bushman says about the 1835 declaration. It turns out, nothing. I can't find any mention of it using keyword searches of the Google book. (You can try for yourself here.) What I did find was a paragraph discussing Smith's views on slavery that I hadn't found in my previous search of the index. I'll quote the whole thing here and let you interpret it yourself. (The paragraph was in the context of discussing verses from Smith's "translation" of Abraham that were later used to deny the priesthood to blacks.)

Was Joseph racist in other contexts? The exclusion of black men from the priesthood was publicly stated only after his death. Except for a brief lapse in early 1836, Joseph advocated taking the gospel to “both bond and free,” ignoring race. An essay against abolitionism published over his name in 1836 (a year when fear of abolitionism was at its peak) exhibited the conventional prejudices of his day in asserting that blacks were cursed with servitude by a “decree of Jehovah,” but there was no follow-up. That spring, the house rules for the Kirtland Temple, the Saints’ most sacred building, allowed for the presence of “male or female bond or free black or white.” The same policy was followed in Nauvoo, where “persons of all languages, and of every tongue, and of every color . . . shall with us worship the Lord of Hosts in his holy temple.” Nothing was done during Joseph’s lifetime to withhold priesthood from black members. Joseph knew Elijah Abel, a black man who was ordained as a seventy, and is said to have entertained him. As Joseph began to take positions on national issues, he came out strongly against slavery. Blacks “come into the world slaves, mentally and physically,” he once said in private conversation. “Change their situation with the white and they would be like them.” He favored a policy of “national Equalization,” though he retained the common prejudice against intermarriage and blending of the races. When he ran for U.S. president in 1844, he made compensated emancipation a plank in his platform. He urged the nation to “ameliorate the condition of all: black or white, bond or free; for the best of books says, ‘God hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth.’” Joseph never commented on the Abraham text or implied it denied priesthood to blacks.

Again, this is from what is widely considered to be the leading biography of Smith. ~Awilley (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• @John Foxe, thanks for the tweaks. I'm fine with this wording and I think that's a pretty good description. As I was comparing Brodie and Bushman I noticed that Brodie talks about the Book of Abraham as part of the justification, while Bushman notes that unlike other arguments of the day that linked the descendants of Ham with Egypt, the Book of Abraham did not link the "curse of Ham" to cultural inferiority and servitude, but only to priesthood (pages 288-289). Since the "justification" was primarily in the 1836 essay, do you think it would be fair to write Smith cautiously justified slavery in a strongly anti-abolitionist essay instead of Smith cautiously justified slavery and wrote a strong anti-abolitionist essay? Also, I think the correct word is "strongly" not "strong" since you need an adverb to modify the adjective. (It was strongly anti-abolitionist, not a strong essay.) ~Awilley (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That wording's an improvement.--John Foxe (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• "...Smith cautiously justified slavery in a strongly anti-abolitionist essay." It should say "...Smith cautiously justified slavery in a strongly anti-abolitionist essay, and in an official 1835 church statement that later passed into church law." zzz (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: Please explain which part is "Inaccurate. That's not what the source says". How would you phrase it? zzz (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure. The 1835 official statement was not a justification of slavery, but a directive that slaves not be proselytized or baptized without the permission of their masters. I would word it as "Smith opposed baptizing slaves without permission of their masters" which is basically what the paragraph says already in the last sentence. (The exact words currently in the article are: "However, he opposed baptizing them without permission of their masters, and he opposed interracial marriage." In the source you cited, the 1835 document is summarized in the section heading at the end of Chapter 1:

AN OFFICIAL DECLARATION THAT CHURCH MISSIONARIES NOT BAPTIZE “BOND SERVANTS” AGAINST “THE WILL AND WISH OF THEIR MASTERS,” 1835.

That is consistent with what is already in the article. If readers choose to interpret that as a "justification of slavery" they can do that, but it's not our job to push that on them if it's not supported in the sources. ~Awilley (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

So you still disagree with the reliable source says which says "By the mid-1830s, however, Joseph Smith shifted his position, affirming support for slavery, doing so in an official 1835 church statement". But you also want to use a section identifier in the same source as the reason for your preferred selective interpretation (of the primary source in question). zzz (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them, contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least, to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude."

We've covered this ground before. Perhaps the problem is that your source slightly contradicts itself, on one page calling it a "seeming pro-slavery statement" made with a "desire to avoid identification with the fledgling abolitionist movement rather than a desire to embrace the South’s particular institution" and on the next page calling it "affirming support for slavery" with a parenthesis (that you continue to leave out of your quote) pointing to the prior, more nuanced explanation. In this situation we can 1), follow the link to the detailed explanation in the section specifically about the 1835 document and summarize that, which is what I did; 2), Look at the primary source itself, see what it says, and summarize it; or 3), Look at what other reliable sources say about the matter and summarize what they say. In this case, whichever path we choose we reach the same result, which is what's already in the article. Yet you seem to be attempting to choose path 4), which is to focus only on a part of a single sentence that seems to support your desired interpretation while ignoring everything else in both the same source and other sources that contradict your interpretation. ~Awilley (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

THe source says, which you keep misinterpreting, "Prompting Smith to issue this seeming pro-slavery statement was his desire to avoid identification with the fledgling abolitionist movement rather than a desire to embrace the South's peculiar institution." So that was his motivation, which you deleted as well. It doesn't contradict the summary at the start of the next chapter in the slightest. And the (discussed in the previous chapter) in parentheses is not a caveat. It is a link to the previous chapter. If you prefer to interpret it as a caveat, that is WP:original research, as is your interpretation of the WP:primary source. zzz (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that the parentheses links the sentence to the section in the previous chapter. (Not sure where you got the idea that it was a caveat.) The excerpt you quoted calls it a "seeming pro-slavery statement" not support for slavery, and definitely not a "justification of slavery".

Stepping back a little, would you be interested in pursuing some form of dispute resolution, like WP:3O, WP:RFC, or WP:DRN? We don't seem to be getting very far here. ~Awilley (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"I'm glad we agree that the parentheses links the sentence to the section in the previous chapter. (Not sure where you got the idea that it was a caveat.)" You think it shades the meaning of the preceding sentence, right? That's why you keep bringing it up, correct? Caveat: "a qualification or exemption". You keep claiming it is a caveat. And now, while still trying to cleverly hint that it is a caveat (which is kind of the crux of your entire argument here, after all), you are claiming you never said it was one (and you don't know where I "got the idea"). zzz (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I am indeed arguing that the sentence in chapter 2 (with the parentheses) is qualified by the paragraph in chapter 1, but I don't think it's an exemption, which is how I interpreted "caveat" when you said that. Sorry about that. Any thoughts on dispute resolution? ~Awilley (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Initially he opposed it, but during the mid-1830s when the Mormons were settling in Missouri (a slave state), Smith cautiously affirmed support for slavery in a strongly anti-abolitionist essay, and in an official 1835 church statement that later passed into church law.
• @Awilley:Your last revert claimed as a reason: "Inaccurate. That's not what the source says". After switching "cautiously justified" to "affirmed support for"), it is now PRECISELY what the source says.
• In order to keep reverting that out of the article, you need to state a reason. Please simply state your reason here on this talk page. zzz (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it's still inaccurate and misleading, and not a good summary of what either document did. The 1836 essay was a rebuttal to abolitionism that included justification for slavery. The 1835 statement was a directive for missionaries to not proselytize slaves without the permission of their masters. These facts are better represented by the current state of the article. Your rewrite strongly implies something that is not true (i.e. that the Mormon church officially supported slavery). I asked in my previous post about pursuing dispute resolution for this, but you didn't answer. It might be a good way to break the current stalemate. ~Awilley (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The source states "By the mid-1830s, however, Joseph Smith shifted his position, affirming support for slavery, doing so in an official 1835 church statement". The proposed article text is "but during the mid-1830s [...], Smith cautiously affirmed support for slavery in a strongly anti-abolitionist essay, and in an official 1835 church statement". You obviously can not reasonably claim that it is misleading. You need to state a valid reason that is in compliance with policy, not repeat your interpretation of a primary source. If you cannot do so, continuing to revert is a very clear policy violation. I am right now "pursuing dispute resolution for this", as per my suggestion for you to offer a suggestion for an alternative wording, which you refuse to do. zzz (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The current wording is "On the issue of slavery, Smith took different positions. Initially he opposed it, but during the mid-1830s when the Mormons were settling in Missouri (a slave state), Smith cautiously justified slavery in a strongly anti-abolitionist essay." You're arguing for mention of an "official 1835 church statement." Is that correct?--John Foxe (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I am in favour of applying project-wide content standards to this supposed WP:GA. The info in the slavery section which you copy-edited earlier, before Awilley deleted it, is the minimum bare essential details required to explain Smith's changing stance to the reader and so DUEWEIGHT does not apply. Why, for example, is the reader not informed that a significant factor motivating the change was to differentiate Mormons from the abolitionist movement? It's not in a source by one leading authority - with his own particular outlook (who thinks it important to state (see above) that Smith was clearly not racist since some one of his best friends rumored acquaintances were was black) - but it is in a more recent source by another leading authority with, perhaps a different outlook. A strong justification is required for this deletion, but Awilley has provided no relevant policy based reason as yet. zzz (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you're right about WP:DUE. We're not dealing with conflicting sources, majority-minority views, etc. Nevertheless, I don't think we need a whole section on Joseph Smith and slavery, which strikes me as reading current emphases back into the past. JS changed his public stance on slavery for pragmatic reasons while trying to reach an understanding with the slave-holding Missourians. When that turned out badly, he reverted to his earlier (more northern) position—racist by any modern standard but pretty commonplace, even somewhat enlightened, for the mid-19th century. I realize I'm not an average reader, but the current four sentences communicate that notion to me.--John Foxe (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please clarify that you are not suggesting that slavery was not a big issue in mid-19th century America. (Smith, for one, thought it merited an "official 1835 church statement that later passed into church law", to quote some of the text deleted by AWilley). zzz (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Modern historians give greater prominence to the issue of mid-19th-century American slavery than most mid-19th-century Americans did. Most mid-19th century politicians tried desperately not to take dogmatic positions on the issue, and the overwhelming majority of whites, north and south, were racists by any modern definition.--John Foxe (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see your point: if modern historians give it prominence, then that is a very good reason to cover it in the article. Also, the deleted content wasn't about racism, so unless you are proposing to add something focusing on that angle, again, I don't see your point. Please clarify. zzz (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

If Colonial Williamsburg put down one-tenth of the manure on the living-history museum streets that was actually there in the 18th-century, tourists (if they showed up) would be overwhelmed by the mess and smell. Contrariwise, if the Founders could have visited the modern streets, they probably have wouldn't noticed the smell at all but would probably have taken note of how immensely cleaner the streets had become.

We should not overemphasize the worldview of moderns at the expense of the worldview of the historical actors. Joseph Smith was the target of lots of contemporary criticism. I can't remember reading any attacks on any of his various positions on slavery.--John Foxe (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion that slavery was a relatively minor issue in mid-19th century America (?!), but as I said, Smith thought it merited an official church statement. "I can't remember reading any attacks..." is more WP:OR obviously, but also irrelevant since the deleted well-sourced content was not about "attacks", nor did it contain any. You are using your WP:OR to try to justify excluding the "worldview of modern historians". Which content policy is that from? zzz (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Slavery was not a minor issue in the 19th century, just more minor to most 19th-century Americans than it is to modern historians. Neither do I want to exclude modern scholarship, just put the issue of slavery in its mid-19th-century context. My point about there being no attacks (that I can remember) on JS's positions on slavery is that those positions seem to have been of little importance to his contemporaries.--John Foxe (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yet more OR. How does excluding the basic facts according to "modern scholarship" help to provide "mid-19th-century context"? (Don't answer that, see WP:NOTAFORUM.) These theories of yours may possibly be suitable for your blog, but not a substitute for WP:PAG. zzz (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Analyzing multiple sources is not WP:OR and discussing how historians approach the worldview of an article's subject is not WP:FORUM. But since the WP acronyms are being thrown around, I've got one. WP:SOUP. ~Awilley (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Your OR/SYNTH is ok, is it? I asked for a policy-based reason for your edit. It seems, finally that your only answer is, calling me a "disruptive editor". Predictable. zzz (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that Joseph Smith's stance on slavery is important because it is important to us today. Several anti-Mormon sites use the 1836 essay to shock or surprise readers. It is surprising to modern readers. Wouldn't it be helpful if we explained the historical context for the essay? It looks everyone agrees that the 1836 essay was anti-abolitionist. zzz cites a reliable source that equates this essay with taking a pro-slavery stance. Awilley disagrees that anti-abolitionist is the same as pro-slavery. If we can't agree on a summary of the 1836 essay, maybe we can use other reliable sources to do so?

Utah History to go mentions the essay by briefly summarizing it: "In 1836 Joseph Smith wrote that masters should treat slaves humanely and that slaves owed their owners obedience." BYU Professor Marvin S. Hill wrote that Joseph Smith saw abolitionists as "subversive," and advised Saints to cooperate with slaveholders in the 1836 essay. Another scholar, W. Paul Reeve at the University of Utah, also characterized the 1836 article as anti-abolitionist, appearing after abolitionist John Alvord organized an anti-slavery chapter in Kirtland. Reeve states that the language in Smith's "renunciation of immediate abolitionism" was "universalism tempered by the social and political realities of preaching in the South."

References

Maybe instead of Smith cautiously justified slavery in a strongly anti-abolitionist essay, it could read Smith supported slave owners in a 1836 essay, in an effort to distance Mormons from abolitionists. I think Smith supported slavery is also supported by the sources, but I'm hoping to find a wording we can agree on. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Wall Southwick

If this is all he is know for, this article would fall into WP:SINGLEEVENT Derek Andrews (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Wall Southwick isn't mentioned in either Bushman or Brodie, so there's no reason why he should be here. I suggest deletion of the article.--John Foxe (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Death of Joseph Smith would be a better merge target than this page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

occupation mcdonalds  ??

I noticed that there was a listing which said "occupation mcdonalds". That sounds like vandalism, but I am not certain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.52.52 (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Section on Ethics and Behavior

I am not sure the subsection on Ethics and behavior really adds much to the article. The article already seems pretty long, and I don't really think of Smith's public statements as one of the most important or unique teachings of Smith's. Would anyone be opposed if I moved it to the subarticle on teachings?

--Trevdna (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Since this has not been addressed in nearly a month, I am taking that as a sign that no one is strongly opposed. If that's not what you had in mind, you always know where to find the revert button. -Trevdna (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

My recent edits

Hey all,

I just got done making a lot of edits to this article, most minor, some fairly substantial. Most concern prose and readability issues. I realize many of them might fall into the category of "easier to ask forgiveness than permission". My intentions are good though, I promise.

If you take exception with anything I've done, please feel free to bring it up here or edit it. Please just don't bloxk revert it all though, that would be uncool.

--Trevdna (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for bringing this up on the talk page as invited to do so. My main problem with your edits was two-fold: First, that you were making rather substantial changes all at once, and second, that in doing so, your intentions were not clarified in the edit summary. Having been an editor here on Wikipedia for the last decade, I always see unexplained changes that substantially alter content as a red flag. That was my reason for reverting them and inviting you to take it to the talk page. I meant no offense by this. But there is a reason these edit summaries exist: it leaves no dobut what your reasons and intentions for making such contributions are. And since all I was looking for is for you to explain the reasons for these edits here on the talk page, I am perfectly satisfied with you going ahead and making them. I hope that my having done so has not given you a negative impression of me or my intentions. Your specified intent to improve this page cleared up any question in my mind. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

No offense taken whatsoever. Do you have any ideas on how I could have improved my edits? I welcome constructive criticism. --Trevdna (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I have, within the scope of my Wikipedia experience, found that while most people, like you, do welcome criticism, others take it personally, and seem to feel that any reverts of their honest efforts is a personal affront. I am glad you have not taken offense. That said, the thing that raised red flags for me with your massive edits was that they were not explained at all in the edit summary section. That section allows anyone looking at an edit after the fact to see clearly what the intent and purpose for the edits in question were. And that provides editors who come to this article later the ability to see what was done, why it was done, whether or not it was a benefit to the page, and what (if anything) might need further work. So my biggest suggestion to you would be to use the edit summary. The area for the edit summary has evolved over time. Now it is clear that there is a 233 character limit for such summaries, which is usually ample space to explain what has been done. So for me, and other who look at this page after your edits, it would help if we have a trail of text explanations in the edit summary that would clear up any questions we have. That's really my only suggestion. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609204410/http://mormonscripturestudies.com/ch/dv/1826.asp to http://mormonscripturestudies.com/ch/dv/1826.asp
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130222081558/http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=031f001cfb340010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab4 to http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=031f001cfb340010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Mormons should refrain from editing this page.

There is an obvious conflict of interest with Mormons editing these pages since they view him as being a prophet and any "bad" (but true) information about him is likely to be removed by them. Pooya~enwiki (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

And all catholics should be banned from editing Catholicism articles, and all Englishmen should be banned from editing articles 'bout England, and all humans should be ... and on and on ... :) Vsmith (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Official website

The article header includes "Website: official website" with an external link to https://josephsmith.net/?lang=eng

This hardly seems appropriate; this article is about Joseph Smith the person, who was alive too early to have an official website. Moreover, the website linked is not some standard website put up by historians, but rather is owned by the mormon/LDS church (so it doesn't represent an unbiased view). Can the website link be removed? Cstanford.math (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed. Tom Haws (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Mormons and ex-Mormons have produced a large amount of scholarly work about Smith"

Change that to Mormons and Non-Mormons. This scholar doesn't fit into either category: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/551996.Joseph_Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C8C0:6C7:3849:C68:17F2:8BCE (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Tom Haws (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Smith's account of his life

I have a source that might help with editing this article. It is an account written by Joseph smith. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng. It also talks about a couple of misrecorded items. For example in the article when it speaks of Joseph Smiths' vision in the woods he was there to pray because he found a scripture in the bible in the book of John chapter 1 verse 5 that reads "if any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God". He then went to the woods to pray about the religious confusion that he felt. This is one of the things it will clarify. --Blackthorn1212 (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, where secondary sources exist, they are preferred, and the first vision account is a perfect example. Why not use the version written in Joseph Smith's own hand 10 years earlier in 1832 that states, "by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith, and there was no society or denomination that was built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament." He then goes on to state his purpose was to seek forgiveness of sins, NOT to resolve religious confusion. In that account he was 15 and no religious confusion exists. My point is, church history is messy, and this article is an attempt to best navigate it all in as neutral point of view as possible. Epachamo (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

non-Mormons angered?

The phrase: "In 1844, Smith and the Nauvoo city council angered non-Mormons by destroying a newspaper". I assume this is referring to William Law and other members of the True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I wonder how proper it is to call them 'non-Mormons' if they were leaders of a "Mormon" organization. Any thoughts on changing the word 'non-Mormons'? Am I missing something? Epachamo (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It is referring to citizens of Illinois outside Nauvoo. (Think Thomas C. Sharp and the Warsaw Signal). ~Awilley (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2020

Joseph Smith was not the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith just restored the church. The real founder of Mormonism, properly preferred as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was Jesus Christ as it says in the name of the church. 144.134.185.136 (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the neutral point of view policy, the article must reflect the general public view that Joseph Smith is the founder of the church. The article does note the beliefs of the adherents of the church as well. Rollidan (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The Proper Name of The Church

I believe that it is important that the church be referred to by its proper name. I see instances where it is referred to as “Mormonism” or “the Latter Day Saint Movement”. These are not the proper name of the church. Many church members would greatly appreciate it being called by its proper name, which is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. Learner 4321 (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference between the three sets of terms. Mormonism refers to the beliefs espoused by practicing members of all religions that trace their origins back to the earthurch established by Joseph Smith. The Latter Day Saint movement refers to all religions tracing their origins back to the earthly church established by Smith. And The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the largest religious sect or denomination within the Latter Day Saint movement which traces its' origins back to Joseph Smith. I happen to be an active member of the latter, and the distinction to me is clear-cut, and a necessary one, in order to not confuse terminology with other faiths within the Latter Day Saint movement. Please take any concerns you may have on this to this page, or this page. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

User made graph removed from article - discuss

Timeline of Joseph Smith's marriages

This graphical image has been added to the article. I've moved it here for discussion. The image is also used at Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy where it is perhaps more relevant.

The creator of the image seems to feel that it needs to be in this article. However, to me it seems a bit out of place - and more relevant in the sub-article. The image may also include a bit of original research - in the presentation. Thoughts? Vsmith (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the section I put it in was the wrong section. I think the Joseph_Smith#Polygamy section would be better. The image is a graphical representation of the content of that section, and with a quick glance gives an overview of Smith's polygamy. I find it very relevant and useful. Please elaborate on the points you feel might be original research. It is all pretty well sourced. Epachamo (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

That would be a preferred section. The references listed on the image page don't seem to relate to the marriage's depicted on the graph, rather they are general references about age differences, etc, and don't appear to be about the "wives" depicted. References would be needed rather for the specific marriages shown. Vsmith (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I am the original content creator for this image, where Epachamo linked the image with permission. If you have a problem with the references, I'm more than happy to add more. The references below the image are selected to give context to the lines and green region presented on the plot, and sources are provided because the contextual data that these sources add are points that LDS apologists are likely to challenge absent sources. I'm more than happy to make changes as needed. As far as it being original research, the only thing original about this is the presentation of all this data in this particular format. The data came directly from the List of Joseph Smith's Wives page, and any information not found there came from the sources cited below. frogontrombone 8:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have added appropriate references for the marriage's depicted on the graph per Vsmith. Pending objections from the community, I will add the image to the Joseph_Smith#Polygamy section. Epachamo (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel the graph is too much detail for a top level encyclopedia biography like this. It would work well in a book or article specifically about Smith's wives, but it's too in depth I think for a subsection with just a couple of paragraphs. I think the most relevant point is that Smith's wives varied widely in age and martial status, and that is already started plainly in text. ~Awilley (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

How can a timeline of Smith's wives be too much detail for an article about the man when nearly all articles about individuals include the names of their spouses, and most of those are not even important parts of those biographies as it is with Smith? And why does it matter how many paragraphs are in that section? (Presently three) This and the unsubstantiated claim of original research, feels to me like an attempt to obscure Smith's polygamy since the power of the graph is its ability to give the overall clarity to this important aspect of the man's life.Cutelyaware (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

The real man was not white. I'd say that is substantive. For the Neophites and Laminites were dark skinned ISRAELITES that crossed the seas and claimed the lands of Joseph. Thence, this was a black man that kept the SABBATHS and Holy days. Laws statutes and commandments of Yahuah. No white men did this not were LED to the plates to be translated. "They painted the faces of the judges". White washed just like in the bible. So,who among you, will stop this lie? Tell the truth. 2601:2C7:8D00:A970:3D44:F712:556D:2F22 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This is unintelligible. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2021

Joseph Smith Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and Prophet of the Restoration of the Fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When he was 24, Smith published the Book of Mormon. By the time of his death, 14 years later, he had accomplished the work of the Lord in which he was called to do. He has done more for the salvation of mankind save Christ alone. To find out more read their website. We will list it down below.

BrayNelson1820 (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Not encyclopedic language. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

prison abolitionist

Re recent good-faith category add by @Journob: -- it would be great if the article discussed this aspect of Smith (his anti-Prison idea) somewhere. Would you be interested in adding it somewhere?

That being said, I don't think I would favor adding the category even if this aspect of Smith is added to the article. The category seems rather broad and I don't think it should exist in the first place, and probably does not deserve to be applied to Smith as one of the main aspects of him as a person. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

50 citations from a Mormon apologist

Bushman is a Mormon himself and is cited more than 50 times in this article. I feel that is absolutely unacceptable for a neutral and scholarly article. For instance “destroying a printing press is worse than any libel” is placing a value judgment that the accusations against him for polygamy etc were indeed libel. This is just one of many examples but it gave me the overall impression that this article is written by a mormon apologist who uses the same mormon church leader “historian” (bushman) as a source over and over again.

I can’t believe this has not been brought up yet on the talk page. I suppose that is because this article is visited much more frequently by mormons than it is by lay people?

This article is FAR from neutral and needs work. It needs more different sources. All of the citations give the impression of widespread research but instead more than half of all the citations are just from LDS convert and apologist Bushman. 69.137.115.73 (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Well you do have a point about the libel sentence; it's definitely not WP:NPOV. Perhaps the Bushman sources do need to be reviewed. ––FormalDude talk 08:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, I think Bushman's mention of "libel" is being taken out of context here. Bushman's point was that it's better PR to just ignore a libelous newspaper than to retaliate by destroying the press, especially in the United States where freedom of the press is next to sacred. Whether the Expositor's publication was libel is debatable. Parts of it were certainly untrue, sensational, and meant to stir up mob violence (a very real concern). But I don't know if it met any technical/legal definition of "libel" and it's tangential to the point Bushman was making. In any case FyzixFighter's edit resolved the problem. ~Awilley (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ty for the speedy response! Wasn’t logged in earlier so I came back to sign this with my account --CarterMassey (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend taking it to the WP:RSN. However, Bushman's "Rough Stone Rolling" is generally accepted in academic non-Mormon circles as the most definitive modern JS biography which makes arguing it as an apologetic work problematic, imo. Regarding the "libel" comment, it would probably be good to look at the context instead of a single sentence. Imo, it looks like Bushman is putting in a context from JS's point of view - however, there is an earlier sentence and a way to word the phrase to avoid the problematic "libel" description and keep the RS. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: If you can reword it and keep the same source, please do so. ––FormalDude talk 01:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel like relying on Bushman as the #1 most cited source in this article is still an issue. Here is some more info about Bushman taken directly from his Wikipedia page: busman: born in salt lake city, worked as mormon missionary, taught seminary at BYU, held post of LDS bishop. "Became convinced that the book of mormon was right" Has "deep presonal commitments to a subject they teach". --CarterMassey (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem with excluding Bushman is that, besides being a Mormon patriarch, he's also a fine historian; and his biography of Joseph Smith is the longest and best researched. (FyzixFighter will be happy to testify that I'm no Mormon apologist.) John Foxe (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I don’t advocate excluding Bushman altogether but I believe he should not be the #1 most cited source in the article --CarterMassey (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cartermassey: Can you provide any other examples where Bushman's writing seems questionable? ––FormalDude talk 08:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not the religion or personal beliefs of a historian that we need to pay attention to. It's the quality of their work and how it is reviewed and cited by other leading scholars in the field. Last I looked, Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling is still the most authoritative and comprehensive biography of Joseph Smith, and it is highly respected and cited in academic circles. When someone writes a piece on Smith, they cite Bushman. When a media outlet does a piece on early Mormonism, they interview Bushman. That seems like a good enough reason for Bushman to be the #1 most cited source in this article.

As for Bushman's book being apologetic, that's simply not true. There are certainly places in the book where he presents things in a way that that is more palatable for Mormon readers. (paraphrasing: "Was such and such thing that Smith did inspired or simply good intuition?...I'll let the reader decide." But I'd argue that Bushman forced the LDS Church to confront head on a lot of the issues it's been dodging for most of its history. 20 years ago your average Mormon would have been shocked to learn that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. I remember attending a lecture 15 or so years ago by Susan Easton Black talking about the last couple of months of Smith's life. She didn't even mention polygamy or "plural marriage" as Mormons call it. During a Q&A at the end, someone asked about it. Black's response was along the lines of, "Joseph Smith wrote X thousand pages during his lifetime and never once did he write the word polygamy. *shrug* *tentative laughs from audience*" Total dodge. Contrast that to today where the LDS Church has pages on its official website openly discussing Smith's polygamy. I think Rough Stone Rolling and the Joseph Smith Papers project were big catalysts for that. ~Awilley (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I just want to concur with what Awilley is saying here. Yes, Richard Bushman is a member of the LDS Church, but given that his work is not just his views but well respected in the academic community, we have no reason not to accept it here. While I understand the need to have a variety of sources from a variety of viewpoints, since Richard Bushman's is some of the best academic work on this topic, we do need to use the best work. Rollidan (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll add my two cents. Richard Bushman's biography was the absolute standard when it came out, both within and without the Church. Bushman is a well respected historian. Particularly when it came out in 2005 there just wasn't anything as cutting edge, making full use of the nascent Joseph Smith Papers. That said, his book is starting to age. It was published 17 years ago, during which time a MASSIVE amount of research has been done, the Joseph Smith Papers has come matured, and an incredible volume of books have been published on Joseph Smith and early Mormonism. I don't think it would be bad to include some of these new, more recent books, that provide a fuller perspective than was available to Bushman. By no means do I think that Bushman should be dismissed as apologetics though. Epachamo (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm no Mormon studies scholar, but from what I've seen on social media, general consensus among historians agrees with Epachamo. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all for the discussion. Excellent points all around and I am particularly moved by what Epachamo said. I will search for some newer sources to complement what is already on the page. --CarterMassey (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Picture

when we add the pic? thanks love you 2603:7080:4603:C400:98DC:E000:7BB3:911B (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Joseph Smith daguerreotype.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Religious denominations

I feel like this is a poor heading that does not accurately represent the topic that is discussed directly underneath. Maybe Successors would be a better heading. The second paragraph in this section does fit well with the "religious denominations" section heading. Bingoldsby (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. How’s that? Trevdna (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022

Change "Joseph Smith Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and founder of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement" to "Joseph Smith Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and restorer of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng 12.179.39.226 (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME. We're not going to use "restorer". Also note there is a tiny minority of the Latter Day Saint movement that is not part of the LDS church Cannolis (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

JosephSmithTranslating.jpg

Over the last few weeks, I’ve been reviewing the 2013 FAC comments. I’ve been trying to resolve those that haven’t been resolved in the normal course of 9 years’ editing. It’s been a big unresolved to-do for me and, well, better late than never. (Right?)

From the FAC:

The image description page of File:JosephSmithTranslating.jpg says that it was made by an anonymous relative of a Commons user in 2008. It's contradictory to publish a picture anonymously and release it under a license that requires attribution; since we can't attribute the author, we can't fulfill the terms of the license. To be honest, it's a low-quality recent imaginative rendering; I don't see it as particularly encyclopedic.

John Foxe, as it was your commissioned work, do you want to suggest something to be done about it? I think it adds to the article - I don’t want to just remove it - but I can’t find any substantially similar work that’s free to use.

—Trevdna (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Obviously the drawing was done because there's nothing out there that can be used for free. Would it be possible for me to modify it in some simple way, like changing the color, and then take credit for the drawing? What if my relative opened a Wikipedia account and then took credit for the drawing? Have any other suggestions? John Foxe (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say either of those ideas sounds great! And as far as the image quality goes: since we’ve both now done our diligence to try to find something better but clearly there’s nothing better that’s free - and it’s clearly an important item to represent in the article, accurately - I would say it should be defensible in any future FAC. You know, hypothetically speaking…

Thanks for your effort helping out on this one! Trevdna (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

But wait… if you commissioned it, doesn’t that make you the copyright holder? A quick Google search seems to indicate that’s the case… maybe we don’t need to do anything about this after all and the original FAC was mistaken. You should be able to release the copyright under the license you did. At least according to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials it seems like that should be the case.

I think I’ve convinced myself this whole thing might not be necessary. Sorry to bother you. Let me know if you still want to go ahead with either of your other ideas, but for now I’m happy to let it lie.

Sorry for the inconvenience. Trevdna (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed your discussion here. Would you like me to ask Anthony Sweat if he would be willing to release the rights of his painting of Joseph Smith translating? He may say no, but he also may say yes. Also, the Volunteer Response Team has information about how to get someone else to release an image that you have uploaded. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Trevdna and Rachel Helps (BYU). After fourteen years, I think we can let the drawing remain in all its spur-of-the-moment simplicity unless someone else comes along with objections. If you appreciate the curious, there were also fourteen years between publication of the BoM and Smith's violent death. John Foxe (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Very interesting thought, John Foxe. Kinda puts in perspective the frenetic pace that Smith’s life took.

Rachel Helps (BYU) that is an awesome offer. I would like to keep it in mind as we (I, at least) gear up to submit this as an FAC one more (and hopefully last!) time. If it becomes a point of controversy again - and we can’t resolve it to the reviewer’s satisfaction - then it’s nice to think this could be a Plan B.

And in case anyone is interested, I do not exactly have a timeline on when I intend to resubmit. Weeks? Months? There is one more point that I think should be made in the article, but I don’t have access to any high quality scholarly sources for a citation, so I need to think about what I’m going to do there. “Real life” of course is what it is as well. Trevdna (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

What source do you need? Maybe I can help you find/access what you need. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Rachel - thanks for your offer of help. And sorry I missed your response here for so long! (I should really use my watchpage to better effect.) One of the reviewers at the 2014 FAC brought up the hypothesis that Smith plagarized the Book of Mormon - and several citations at Origin of the Book of Mormon seem to point to this hypothesis, and I have access to none of them. Although I think I've come to a compromise wording of the section in question after my initial edits were partially rolled back, so I think I'm willing to let it be as-is.

That said, I am now much more pessimistic about this article's suitability for promotion to FA for an unrelated issue: I was informed, at the peer review of the LDS Church article, that No Man Knows My History is now considered a deprecated source per the LDS Wikiproject. WP:LDS/RS. Therefore I expect this article would require extensive rework to remove references to it and replace them with "contemporary consensus among specialists in Mormon history across a broad range of scholars, including both Mormons of various denominations and non-Mormons."

Frankly I disagree, but that appears to be the consensus of the Wikiproject and I am not up for fighting that battle at this time. Without the support of the Wikiproject (and in fact I would expect downright opposition from its members) I expect another FAC would go nowhere. Therefore I no longer expect to renominate this article for the foreseeable future. Thanks for your offer of help anyway. Trevdna (talk) 06:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Trevdna, I agree that these days there are much better sources out there than No Man Knows My History, but I understand if you feel burned out on editing at the moment. I can tell that a lot of long research has gone into this page. It looks like a lot of the Brodie citations are cited along with other biographies. I only see about twelve citations where Brodie is cited with no other supporting citations. Maybe I could tackle some of the citations after I finish up my work on the Brigham Young page (which is probably going to take a long time; I keep getting pulled into other Wikimedia projects!). If I were to work on the page though, I would want oversight by some non-LDS (or at least non-BYU-affiliated) editors--I try to be neutral, but sometimes I get outraged and excited by weird things and end up in WP:UNDUE. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Trevdna:, I hope you are able to recover your energy soon, I understand feeling burnt out. You have done some amazing things on this project and it would be real shame to see you go. Its an anonymous, thankless gift that people give by editing Wikipedia, but I for one am appreciative and thank you for your service. Epachamo (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, all :) It means a lot.

It’s hard to say exactly how other editors will go during a FAN, but my gut says we would get some pretty key opposition because of them. Especially after the peer review, it seems to me like FormalDude is pretty set against Brodie as a source - although of course I could be wrong. Although the number of Brodie references is relatively low, they pertain to some pretty key passages in the article. I pretty much have access to only Brodie and Bushman on my personal library, so I find myself at an impasse when it comes to moving this article through this challenge myself.

Rachel - if you are looking to help find references, I would say that should be where we go now: if you can find references that can substantially substitute for those 12 citations, I think this could still work. A few of them will probably require reworking the article itself (notably the section I just got done on the BoM and View of the Hebrews), and maybe this could make it through with a few Brodie references, but overall I think that’s the last major push. Trevdna (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Other sources

While I've been looking at the citations, I've noticed references to B.H. Roberts's histories and also the Doctrine and Covenants. I think we would prefer to not have these as sources? I haven't made any special effort to remove them. We can discuss it at the talk page for the subject-specific source list at the LDS Wikiproject. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Notes on removing/replacing Brodie citations

I'm in the process of removing and/or replacing the Fawn Brodie citations. I haven't (yet) done a literature review of books about Joseph Smith like I did with Brigham Young. So I really don't know anything about Joseph Smith scholarship beyond how Bushman's book is considered excellent. I found a partial replacement for "discussing organized boycott of Book of Mormon by Palmyra residents, and opposition by Colesville and Bainbridge residents who remembered the 1826 trial". Terryl Givens discusses the boycott on p. 58 of By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture That Launched a New World Religion ("In January of the new year, residents organized a boycott of the offending book."). He cites The Revised and Enhanced History of Joseph Smith by his Mother. Both of these sources have reason to be somewhat biased in Joseph Smith's favor, but the fact that there was a boycott seems uncontroversial. What do you think of using either as a replacement citation (I still haven't tracked down another source for "opposition by Colesville and Bainbridge residents")? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Though I'm a non-Mormon who wishes I could write as well in my 70s as Brodie did when she was 30, I appreciate what you're trying to do. John Foxe (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Dan Vogel discusses opposition in Colesville and Bainbridge in detail in his book Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, chapter 30. Joseph Smith was actually brought to trial in South Bainbridge and Colesville in July 1830. Chapter 29 briefly discusses the Palmyra boycott. Given the book won JWHA and Mormon History Association best Book Awards, I think it would be be an excellent source for something like this. Also, "Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith" is an excellent source that discusses the opposition in Colesville and Bainbridge on page 33. Epachamo (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Brodie's research was groundbreaking! Thank you for the source recommendations, Epachamo. I don't know why we don't have a stacks copy of the Vogel biography in the BYU Library, but I asked that we get one and I also ordered a copy via inter-library loan. I also have a physical copy of Rough Stone Rolling in my office now so I can check page numbers. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to document some information I am removing, since the edit summary wasn't big enough to explain. I'm removing "Rigdon's followers had also been practicing a form of communalism, which Smith adopted, calling it the United Order." The original United Order was not a form of communalism necessarily; ch. 10 of Van Wagoner's Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Excess, states that the United Order was originally called the United Firm, and was "a mercantile partnership, was organized through revelation (D&C 78) as a private business alliance to create additional personal income for the temporal "salvation" of church leaders, including Rigdon. A second purpose, which never reached fruition, was generating surplus wealth to support the economic needs of the entire church." (I don't have the page number as I am working from a digital version of this book.) I think that the fact that Rigdon's followers were practicing communalism is really interesting, but I haven't been able to verify that this was Smith's inspiration for the initial formation of the United Firm. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd highly recommend looking at Mark Staker's absolutely amazing book, "Hearken, O Ye People: The Historical Setting of Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations". There is a great discussion of the relationship starting in Chapter 6 and on page 228. When Joseph Smith arrived in Kirtland in early 1831, he was met with what to do with the Morley Farm's communalism. Was it doctrinal? 12 elder of the church met in Kirtland with Joseph Smith and asked him this and many other questions. Section 42 was the answer: JSP Revelation book 1. Mark Staker draws a clear line from the Morley Farm to the United Order. It is not a coincidence that the skep Beehive symbol used by Morley and others is a symbol that persists in the Church today. Epachamo (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for referring me to this useful source! I am going to list a few quotes from Hearken, O Ye People and we can discuss if we can summarize them as an influence, or if that would be an inference that would be Original Research.

"Joseph Smith's revelations during the few weeks he lived at the Whitney home, focused heavily on economic issues. Morley Family communal property efforts were consistent with expansive efforts by Owenites and others to reform property ownership designed to help the poor, although, unlike typical Owenite proposals, the Morley Family grounded its approach in New Testament doctrine and practice. The Mormonite community still did not agree on how to approach economic matters in the Church and the Book of Mormon did not resolve all their concerns." (p. 228)

[two paragraphs about how the D&C 42 revelation was the first modern LDS revelation to use the word "consecrate", etc.]

"The Law of the Church completely reworked the Family organization in operation on the Morley farm, in Chardon, and perhaps in surrounding communities." (p. 228) A discussion of the differences follows--individuals make their own clothing in the new Law and those who leave don't take their property with them. An extensive discussion of the finances of the two stores follows. The Morley Family is mentioned again on pg. 235: "Although it is clear that the United Firm was not a repeat of the experiences Whitney had encountered with the Morley Family earlier, we can only guess at the true nature of the business relationship." (p. 235)

It sounds like "influence" is the wrong word if the church "completely reworked" it to be something new. Maybe changing "adopted" to "adapted" would be more... apt? "Rigdon's followers had also been practicing a form of communalism, which Smith adapted, calling it the United Order." Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "adapted". Epachamo (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Rachel Helps (BYU) you have a disqualifying COI, you can't be editing this page directly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

source: Evidence for the Sexual Side of Joseph Smith's Polygamy

Quinn's Evidence for the Sexual Side of Joseph Smith's Polygamy is listed as "privately distributed." Technically, anyone physically present at the BYU Library can access it via our archive, so it is verifiable, but I think we should remove the source, since it appears to be self-published. Do others agree? It is used once on the page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

If it is self-published and only accessible at that one library then it rather fails as a reliable source and should not be used. --Vsmith (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

In other articles, I've used similar evidence and presumably have not been called on it because the articles themselves, and the statements the evidence support, are so white-bread, noncontroversial. Here the Quinn reference should probably should be removed "out of an abundance of caution." Too bad, though, that a scholar might miss the existence of a piece written by an exceptional student of Mormonism. John Foxe (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

We could put it in a Further Reading section, although I've seen FA reviews that argue that anything in a Further Reading section ought to be made into a reference. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for how much later this is, but I think I made an unexpected discovery. "Evidence for the Sexual Side of Joseph Smith's Polygamy" by D. Michael Quinn—which is, as it turns out, a revised version of comments he made as a respondent to a panel at the 2012 Mormon History Association conference—is distributed online with Quinn's permission through the website Joseph Smith's Polygamy, created by Laura Harris Hales and Brian C. Hales. Quinn's "Evidence for the Sexual Side" is available as a PDF here, linked from this webpage that has an introduction explaining the essay's background, plus Brian Hales's response to "Evidence for the Sexual Side".

I don't know if this really changes anything (I went back in the page's history and have to admit I don't quite understand what the discursive footnote citing "Evidence for the Sexual Side" was saying). It just means the essay is also available digitally. I think it technically still qualifies as a self-published source, since the final document itself was not editor-reviewed or peer-reviewed, and I suppose it's probably difficult to quite know how to use the source since it's published alongside another essay that offers the opposite thesis (which itself also bears the same traits, i.e. self-published by Wikipedia standards and published alongside another essay arguing the opposite thesis). I personally think the essays look useful and look forward to learning what Quinn's conclusions were, but I acknowledge that Wikipedia's standards for sources can be very particular. P-Makoto (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)