Talk:First Vision/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

A "critic" debate

I have stayed out of the "critic" debate until now. The statements of third parties are just the statements of third parties. Critics at times draw conclusions that others would not; not identifying the source of the statement is deceitful. When I look at these types of questions I try to put the shoe on the other foot to see how things are treated. Interestingly, Christians seem not to be disturbed that Mary and Joseph did not leave written records of their views of Jesus as a child or even as an adult. Though the scritpures talk about angels being with Jesus as a child, no one else lends credence to that statement. Does an absence of record undermine th credibility of Jesus' recorded statements? Not for all of Christianity. Why then is it important here in this situation? Becasuse a CRITIC draws a conclusion; without labeling the review as a critique readers are lead to a desired deduction.

In religion, it is always interesting to observe the different, sometimes grossly so, standards believers use. Believers are willing to swallow a whale in their own religion, but want to choke on a gnat in all others. It gives all of religion a bad reputation. Fundamentally, I think it is at the heart of religious conflict throughout history. Stating who is giving a review is appropriate and, in fact, needed if this is to meet NPOV standards. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider's argument is wrong for two reasons. First, whether Joseph Smith or New Testament figures saw visions is not susceptible to objective proof. There are no historical facts to relate about either. (By the way, the Bible never says that angels were with Jesus as a child, unless perhaps you're thinking of the announcement of His birth to the shepherds.) Second, the attempt to relate the beginnings of Mormonism to the beginnings of Christianity is anachronistic. Jesus lived two thousand years ago. Primary sources from the first century are extremely limited. There were no newspapers. But there's a deluge of information for Joseph Smith. People have seriously argued that Jesus did not exist. No one in their right mind could make that argument about Joseph Smith. We know where he lived and worked, in some cases on a day-by-day basis. There are five considerable volumes of Early Mormon Documents, each volume perhaps containing twice the word count of the New Testament. As Martin Marty has said, Mormon beginnings are so recent that there's "no place to hide....There is little protection for Mormon sacredness."--John Foxe 16:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources for the Bible are not extremely limited; they are nonexistent. Everything known to do is the result of copies of copies of copies. However, just because the history surrounding Joseph Smith is more prevalent, it is not correct that it is complete. Much of the information surrounding Joseph Smith is suspect at best; I speak of Howe's work in particular. In addition, much of the "work" is from third parties who had a definite axe to grind; in best of terms they are appropriately recognized as critics. The absence of information means absence of information and nothing more. To attempt to draw a deduction based on absence is not appropritae for Wikipedia; we do not define truth or lead readers. The principle of my example is more than applicable. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Storm Rider on this one. The Jade Knight 10:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First, copies of copies of copies are primary sources unless you're willing to throw out all classical texts including Homer, Livy, and Virgil. Second, there actually are non-biblical primary sources that discuss people and events in the Bible. Just last week it was revealed that a cuneiform tablet contained the name of an official mentioned in Jeremiah. (I warn you that it won't look right if you're checking the KJV.)

In no case is the historical record for any person or incident "complete" (think of all the things you've forgotten about your own childhood), but that doesn't mean we have to throw up history as impossible. Every day we make historical judgments based on our knowledge of the past: for instance, whether if we loan a certain friend $20, we'll ever see it again. We're not talking about Howe here. (No worry about inference or silence there.) We're talking about the evidence given (or rather, not given) by Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother and a faithful believer from beginning to end. To deny that her silence has no meaning violates common sense and the way historians, lay as well as professional, do their work.John Foxe 10:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

To read meaning into silence would turn Medieval History on its head, John—it would be impossible to do any sort of accurate historiography, because everyone would be "reading between the lines" where there is nothing that should be read. I once completely spaced out and forgot that I had ever visited French Polynesia, one of the most significant trips I had ever taken in my life. Does this mean it never occured? Of course not, that would be rediculous. But just because it slipped my mind and I failed to relate it (even when asked about interesting things I've done) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Memories (and records, moreso), are like that. The Jade Knight 11:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith is not medieval history (although classical and medieval historians do read into silences—too freely in some cases, I fear). And yes, our memories are faulty. After I was drafted into the Army, someone told me that even if I forgot my wedding anniversary, I'd never forget the day I was inducted. (This prediction has unfortunately proved true on several occasions, including this past May.) The First Vision, if it occurred, should have been a shattering experience. Can you imagine seeing Jesus and God in material bodies? Presumably Joseph Smith later mentioned this event to his mother, a believer from 1823 to the end of her life. And yet from her testimony on several occasions about her late son, she says nothing about it. The visit from Moroni is unforgettable; the vision of God and Jesus unknown. That Lucy Mack Smith never mentions the First Vision is a fact, not a contrivance of critics. The reader does not have to be led with "ah-hahs"; and Mormon apologetics (properly labeled) can be swiftly administered to prevent non-faith-promoting thoughts from disturbing the faithful. But the statement itself is a fact, not criticism, no matter how favorable it is to the skeptical position.John Foxe 15:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

LMS not mentioning the FV in a specific record is a fact that means nothing in isolation, is totally uninteressting, there are many facts like this that are not mentioned. 74s181 17:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

LMS not mentioning the FV in all known records is the result of some person's research (a secondary source) and also means nothing in isolation. It is a bit more interesting, but so are many other facts that are not mentioned. 74s181 17:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you're saying that there are no primary sources because they all have to be researched by someone and that makes them secondary sources?--John Foxe 19:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that the 'not mentioned in all known records' is only a fact because someone researched it and said so. If that someone is a WP editor it is WP:OR. If that someone is a 'reliable source' it is a secondary source, and therefore appropriate for use, but must be cited. 74s181 13:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is not about LMS. The LMS non-mention fact has nothing to do with the who, what, why, where, when of the FV. The only way to make the LMS non-mention fact notable in the FV article is to relate it to the FV. And the only way it has anything to do with the FV is if you are trying to prove something. 74s181 17:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's part of the "when." Never.--John Foxe 19:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It becomes part of the when IF someone interprets it as evidence of 'the FV didn't happen' POV. If that someone is a WP editor it is WP:OR. If that someone is a 'reliable source' it is a secondary source, and therefore appropriate for use, but must be cited. And because this is a 'disputed fact' according to Wp:npov#A_simple_formulation it must be identified as such, or, in other words, identified as criticism, and then balanced. 74s181 13:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If the fact were stated in isolation I would object more to the lack of relevance than anything else. But, where would you put it? As soon as you put this fact next to something else, like, 'LMS mentioned the Moroni vision BUT not the FV', or 'JS said he told his mother, BUT she never mentioned it', then you are engaging in original research, probably synthesis, at a minimum it would 'radiate an implied stance' in violation of Wp:npov#Fairness_of_tone, supporting the 'it never happened' POV. While this is a valid POV, it must be properly neutralized per Wp:npov#A_simple_formulation, or, IOW, attributed to some expert. 74s181 17:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If we can get the involved parties to all agree to mediation, then we will have "someone with wisdom, authority, and no previous relationship to this article or any of the key players in it" to help us understand how WP policies apply to this dispute, and help us reach a consensus on how to properly present these issues. 74s181 17:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I disagree about the importance of Lucy Mack Smith's lack of mention of the First Vision. As I said above, it is a fact and one embarrassing to believers. But it needs no balance, no attribution to an expert. It just is. Now, how this fact is presented is a matter for cooperative discussion. It just cannot be labeled criticism.--John Foxe 19:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course you disagree, that is why I submitted the WP:RFM. The LMS non-mention fact isn't embarrassing to me, because it doesn't change what I know, just like the differences between the biblical accounts of the Death_and_Resurrection_of_Jesus aren't embarrassing to either you or I, because of the knowledge we share. As I said, a neutral mention of the LMS non-mention is fine with me, but if it stays where it is it has to be attributed, because it is being used to discredit JS and / or the reliability of the JSH account of the FV. 74s181 23:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If the LMS non-mention fact is that important to you then it must be presented in a NPOV way. It's a simple choice. Either rework it so it stands alone and doesn't lead the reader to a conclusion, or explicitly reference a particular critic who uses this fact to support the negative POV, and balance that with an apologetic view. 74s181 23:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem reworking the statement through collaborative discussion so that it doesn't lead the reader. But it can't be labeled "criticism," and any apologetic reply must be clearly labeled as such. My interest is in ensuring that there's no moral equivalence between fact (the lack of any mention of the First Vision by Lucy Mack Smith) and Mormon apologetics. (The Resurrection is a faith claim with no information outside the Bible on which to make a historical judgment and, as such, is irrelevant to our discussion.)John Foxe 10:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the crux of the biscuit. And I'm not talking about the Apostrophe ('). 74s181 13:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I know that you guys have been discussing this issue above, but I felt it might focus the conversation solely to this section topic. I am not sure an introduction is an appropriate location for specific quotes. The Jesen and Mouw quotes/statements should go into the body. I believe the point that is trying to be made is that there is potential disagreement between versions and that it can be disquieting so individuals. I am not certain the value of intruducing that some people believe, whether LDS or not, and some don't is a bit redundant...one of those Duh moments. I propose they be moved down into the body. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me.--John Foxe 10:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As with me. That quote sticks out like a sore thumb, IMHO. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 14:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I also support the move. The Jade Knight 10:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, you said "That's fine with me." Are you saying that you are now ready to allow an explicit discussion of criticism in the article? I'm certainly ready to go back to editing the article. 74s181 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As a result of the last edit war there has been considerable discussion about specific changes to the article, with several specific proposals on the table including changes to this part of the lead, see Talk:First_Vision#Proposed_change_to_Intro_section. 74s181 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I agree that the lead is not the place to go into specifics of particular arguments. I agree that these quotes would be better placed in a section devoted to discussing this particular POV, that is, criticism based on perceived contradictions in the accounts. The "Possible anachronisms in the 1838 Account" is where this criticism has been in the past, if the section were renamed it would be a good place for the discussion of the critical POV. 74s181 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But John Foxe has previously been steadfast in his resistance to explicit discussion of any kind of criticism in the article. Although he has feigned good will and a willingness to 'debate this sentence by sentence', his past actions demonstrated that he really wanted the article to 'radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization'. 74s181 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That is how these quotes ended up in the lead in the first place. I felt that the two quotes subtly addressed the idea of criticism based on alleged contradictions, with the last phrase 'And so... I live with the mystery' blunting the edge of the 'implied stance', the subtle anti-LDS / anti-FV bias that is hidden throughout the remainder of the article. 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But this sort of subtle craftiness is against my nature, I am not a good chess player. I got tired of trying to outfox the Foxe at his own game and decided that it would be better to try once again to resolve the core issue of John Foxe's past resistance to explicit discussion of criticism. That is why I abandoned discussion of specific changes and shifted to a more philosophical debate. 74s181 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, Bill, I understand your desire to get back to editing the article, but I feel very strongly that we cannot just sweep this problem under the rug. John Foxe has been unable or unwilling to understand WP:NPOV. I've tried to explain it, I've spent hours doing analysis, providing examples, quoting policy, responding to discussion. 74s181 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, if you're ready to acknowledge that criticism is a POV that needs to be explicitly discussed in the article, please say so and we'll move on. But if not, well, maybe I'm the one who is wrong, I guess the only way to find out would be to request mediation and be done with it. I'm tired of shouting at the wind. 74s181 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation

The discussion is going nowhere, so I have submitted a Request for mediation. 74s181 01:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, if you really are a 'man of good will' you will agree to mediation. 74s181 01:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

COGDEN, you said you opposed this, but I hope you will change your mind and agree to support the mediation request. 74s181 01:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Even though I'm the only non-Mormon editing here, I see no need for mediation at present. The issues that divide us seem to have narrowed during the past week, and you all have treated me fairly since Visorstuff protected the page, not using "consensus" as an excuse to force your will on the article. Although mediation may be necessary in the future, let's try to work things out among ourselves first.John Foxe 16:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We've tried working things out. The dispute has been narrowed down to a short list of very specific issues since 17 July. John Foxe, your comments since that time demonstrate that your position has not changed in any way. In my opinion, if you are truly a 'man of good will' you will agree to mediation. 74s181 17:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I will not allow these problems to be swept under the rug. 74s181 17:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And, BTW, you're not really alone. I included COGDEN in the list of involved parties, you seem to trust his opinion and I think perhaps he shares your view on some of the disputed issues. 74s181 17:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Breaking the collaborative truce

I have reverted some of The Jade Knight's changes––those at the heart of our disagreement––on the grounds that there was not a hint in the discussion page that he was about to make them. Nor did he take the time to explain his rationale for making them now. I consider this a breach of good faith that has been maintained for more than a week.--John Foxe 09:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a direct discussion. You chose not to participate. See Talk:First_Vision#What_happened_to_discuss_first.2C_then_edit.3F for the discussion and straw poll. There's no breach of good faith. A straw poll (left up for roughly a week) indicates 3-0 that consensus was in favour of restoring to the state the article is now at. The Jade Knight 10:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with submitting to Consensus, John Foxe, then I highly recommend you submit to Mediation, instead. The Jade Knight 10:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought trying to force me into accepting mediation might be the motivation. I praise you for not trying to force a Mormon consensus on the article and then you realize that gentlemanly behavior might be counterproductive.--John Foxe 10:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually my motivation is that consensus had been reached. However, the timing of my implimenting consensus is to try to encourage you to take things to a more diplomatic level, John. You wont win through sheer force of will—but I'll gladly listen to reason. I've agreed with you before on your edits on this article. The Jade Knight 10:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty. If a Mormon consensus is all that it takes, then as the only non-Mormon here, I'll lose every time on any question of importance. Nothing I can say will make a difference. Nor will mediation.John Foxe 10:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop dividing the world into Mormons and non-Mormons. I'm not interested in a Mormon or non-Mormon version of this article. I'm interested in an accurate, neutral, and clear one. There have been times when I've seen your side of a particular edit more than I've seen 74s181's. You can be involved in the consensus-building process, too, John. The Jade Knight 11:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to speak for Jade Knight, but I'm guessing that he probably thought we had a consensus when several people voted 'agree' and no one voted 'oppose' on the proposed change.

14:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC) John Foxe proposed neutering the 'abrac' quote.

15:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC) I explained why neutering would be wrong.

15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Wrp103 proposed reverting the JF edits.

16:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) John Foxe said there was no POV.

18:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC) I disagreed with John Foxe and voted 'agree' to revert.

01:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Jade Knight agreed with revert, but thought some of JF's changes were ok and should be discussed.

10:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC) John Foxe insisted that he didn't need a nose count before editing.

11:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC) I quoted Visorstuff's instructions that changes should be worked out before editing, and voiced my opinion.

12:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC) I said that I thought we were moving towards a consensus but thought that John Foxe didn't agree, although he never voted 'oppose'. I said, "give him a bit longer."

20:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC) No further comments from John Foxe on this proposal, so Jade Knight implemented the consensus.

Skirmish ensues. 74s181 22:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Jade Knight was perfectly right to implement the consensus. One thing I've learned about John Foxe is that if he doesn't respond, it is either because has run out of defense, or because he is offline. Other comments by John Foxe between 17 July and 21 July indicate that he was here, therefore, he chose not to comment, therefore, he didn't want to comment, or he didn't have anything else to say in defense of his position. Either way, he had opted out, therefore, Jade Knight's actions were in good faith, therefore, John Foxe's subsequent reverts were inappropriate. 74s181 22:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What we have is a ceasefire, not a truce. If anyone doesn't understand the difference, take a look at this talk page and the Korean Demilitarized Zone. 74s181 13:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, you said:

...as the only non-Mormon here, I'll lose every time on any question of importance. Nothing I can say will make a difference...

If you believe this, then surely mediation can only help your position. If, however, you know that you are wrong, then you will continue to resist mediation. Note, however, that mediation is not the last step of the dispute resolution process. 74s181 13:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have only seen one other instance when a party refuses to participate in mediation; it is a less than positive sign. When one refuses to participate in mediation, my thought is that they refuse to participate in an objective process. John what do you perceive that you will lose by participating? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Timeo Mormonos et dona ferentis."--John Foxe 13:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Beware of Mormons bearing gifts"? Is that right? What's your point? BTW, COGDEN has agreed to mediation. You are the only holdout. I will not allow this to be swept under the rug, I insist that these issues be resolved. . 74s181 22:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the "this" that you constantly say you won't allow to be swept under the rug?

I'm the only holdout; I'm also the only non-Mormon. My gut feeling is that the whole mediation business is a Trojan Horse. I'm especially suspicious of the Request for Mediation because the "Issues to be mediated" are references to Wikipedia rules and not sentences in English like most of the issues in other mediation cases. I'm not even sure the issues are specific enough to be accepted for mediation. Frankly, Les, every time you start citing Wikipedia rules, I tune them out as Mormon smokescreen.--John Foxe 23:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you have read Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/First_Vision you should know what 'this' is. If you had looked at the edit history you would also know that user:Daniel, the chairman of the mediation committee, has already reduced the scope of the mediation in a way that is favorable to you. 74s181 00:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like even more Wiki rules have been added to the "issues."--John Foxe 10:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you should have agreed sooner, that would have locked down the scope, at least that is how I understand it. 74s181 13:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

...Wikipedia rules, I tune them out as Mormon smokescreen... .--John Foxe 23:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a big part of the problem. There are rules, and you are unwilling to follow them. Sounds like you're now saying that Wikipedia is some kind of secret Mormon conspiracy 74s181 00:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To explicitly refuse to follow Wikipedia policy is a clear indication of bad faith, IMO, particularly when several others are going out of their way to try to help you understand what that policy is. The Jade Knight 01:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been editing at Wikipedia for more than a year and a half now and have made significant contributions to the project. I've even been engaged in several "frank exchanges of views," as they say in diplomacy. But I've never before seen the interpretation of Wiki rules used, as they have been in this case, in a concerted attempt to suppress truth. In fact, I can't remember a previous case where other editors even relied on Wiki rules to make their argument. The facts in this article shout against you, but your numbers permit the use of the moonshine of Wiki rules in the interest of religious apologetics. (I should add that I bear no ill will against any of you personally. You are all interesting people with remarkably different personalities.)--John Foxe 10:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, I am not trying to suppress TRUTH, you are<g>. But TRUTH (with a capital 'T'...), or in other words, conclusions, aren't what Wikipedia is about. IMHO, you are the one trying to suppress facts, specifically, the fact that criticism exists, the fact that when statement A is placed next to statement B it is criticism, even if you don't want it identified as such, the fact that WP:NPOV requires that:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). 74s181 13:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why no one ever brought up the rules before. I have seen attempts to 'compromise', "I'll let you delete this if I can delete that" sort of thing. This is absolutely against the rules:

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

Another appropriate quote from a different source:

In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?

This is the main reason I asked for mediation; to have "someone with wisdom, authority, and no previous relationship to this article or any of the key players in it to step in" and help us determine among all the participants in this article whose interpretation of WP:NPOV is correct, or, if none of us are, to help us all better understand. 74s181 13:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If mediation fails, it will be "time for someone with wisdom, authority, and no previous relationship to this article or any of the key players in it to step in and take action to resolve this.", or, in other words, arbitration. 74s181 13:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

At WP:RFAR it says that if disputants have not followed the order of resolution attempts "it is very likely that the Committee will decline to hear your request." I assume that means no mediation, no arbitration.

Yes, as you now know since you voted against mediation, it means no mediation. However, arbitration is completely different. Since you have refused mediation, then arbitration is the last step and it is not voluntary. 74s181 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, I'm not unalterably opposed to mediation, but if something is going to be mediated, then the questions at issue ought to be agreed upon by both parties, in this case, the Mormons and the non-Mormons (me). The last thing I want to do is argue about the nuances of Wiki rules. I would (to continue the Trojan Horse metaphor) quickly end like Laocoon, enmeshed in the coils of a pseudo-bureaucratic serpent.--John Foxe 13:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

John, it might be better if you pose the questions where there is a dispute about content. Severa editors have worked towards concensus and you are the only one that refuses to participate. If you don't pose the questions, I have no problem ensuring this article remains stalemated until a concensus is reached. What fun we will have. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

John, the basic issue that (IMHO) should be mediated is how to interpret WP:NPOV. You seem to have a different interpretation than most of the other active editors of this article. Until that gets resolved, you will continue to meet with opposition to your changes. It has nothing to do with you being a non-Mormon, or even your viewpoints about FV. It has to do with the way you present what you consider facts, and how you suppress alternate POV issues. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's easy enough to say that my position has nothing to do with being a non-Mormon, Bill; but I don't think you'd find it difficult to imagine this situation in reverse, with you the only Mormon editor challenged by a half-dozen non-Mormons. (It won't happen here, of course. I'm sure most of my acquaintances would return a blank stare if I uttered the phrase "First Vision.")--John Foxe 19:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that you would say that, John Foxe. I'm not sure if you're acquainted with user:Mkmcconn. He is a Calvinist, as I suspect you are, but even if you are not I think that he is probably on your side when it comes to the Truth about the First Vision. I'm sure some of the other editors here would agree when I say that he and I had much more than "frank exchanges of views" at Mormonism and Christianity, but much of what I know about how Wikipedia works I learned during that time. 74s181 00:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, about a month after I started working on this article, after the 'no facts were harmed' restructuring but before your reversion of same, he posted this comment on my talk page:

74s181, I've watched your edits on First Vision and I want to encourage you in the good understanding that you have developed, of how our policies apply to controversial topics. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to put words in his mouth, in fact, I'm pretty nervous even quoting him here, but he is most definitely NOT a Mormon and I suspect that if he were to review our discussion about this article he might have a parable or two for you, John Foxe. 74s181 00:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on the problems with this article hasn't changed since the first time I read it and posted my "Where's the beef?" comment. However, my opinion about why these problems exist has evolved over time. John Foxe, at first I thought you just didn't understand WP policies. I tried to explain them. I quoted from them. I provided references. I provided examples. Finally, the truth came out:

Frankly, Les, every time you start citing Wikipedia rules, I tune them out as Mormon smokescreen.--John Foxe 23:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So I guess that's it. 74s181 00:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Exercises in neutrality and collaboration

Jade says that he’s “not interested in a Mormon or non-Mormon version of this article,” that he wants an “accurate, neutral, and clear one.” Here are two exercises to demonstrate Mormon willingness to collaborate with a non-Mormon on this article.

1. Without question the most flagrant Mormon POV in the whole article is the statement that there are two points of view about the use of the word “exhorter” as applied to Joseph Smith by one of his friends. The idiosyncratic view that the word “exhorter” refers to a debating club appears only at an on-line, non-peer-reviewed, Mormon apologetic site and has not been adopted by any historian of Mormonism, LDS or no. I have attempted to make a concession by removing the word “exhorter” from the text and allowing the reference to this new theory to appear in the footnotes, but Jade has refused to make any reciprocal concessions. I have now reverted to the earlier version. The Mormons can now leave it as is, make their own concessions, or simply revert to their own version.

2. A Mormon/Non-Mormon consensus was reached that the third paragraph of the lead, the “mystery remains” paragraph, should be dismantled. Nothing has been done. I have deleted it. The Mormons can retain the deletion, move appropriate sentences to other paragraphs in the article, squabble among themselves, or simply revert to the earlier version.--John Foxe 13:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted. I understand the desire to get back to editing, but I will not allow the discussion of core issues to be swept under the rug again.

Do you act for all the Mormons editing here or only act on your on behalf without consulting them?--John Foxe 22:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I was acting on my own, based on what I thought was the consensus that no changes will be made to the article without discussion and consensus, now and for the forseeable future. I considered posting the comments below rather than reverting, but I like I said, I think we have a consensus on no changes without discussion, in one case there was a specific proposed change, but discussion never came to a vote as we dived deeper into the core problem. 74s181 22:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

1. On-line - yes, but originally presented at a conference. Non-peer-reviewed - no, see [1], Mormon apologetic - yes, so what? The last comment about the exhorter debate at Talk:First_Vision#Exhorter_paragraph was that we need to follow WP:NPOV policies. There has been some comment supportive of FAIRlds at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.fairlds.org. I believe the proper question now is whether the 'exhorter = debater' theory is notable, or if it is a tiny minority opinion not worthy of mention. 74s181 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

2. The closest thing to a consensus in the earlier discussion Talk:First_Vision#Introduction was a specific change in the last sentence of the second paragraph and begining of the third paragraph. This discussion and others stopped when we began tackling the core issues rather than specific changes. A total delete of the third paragraph was proposed later at Talk:First_Vision#Introduction, I said that if John Foxe would agree that criticism was a POV that needed to be explicitly discussed in the article, then I would be fine with moving the quotes elsewhere. There was no agreement by John Foxe, and no discussion of where to move the quotes. 74s181 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to either of these changes until we have a consensus on the deeper 'criticism' issue. 74s181 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, you are assigning me straw men. I have said before that I would be fine with removing the entire "exhorter" business from the article. I'm also not adamant about including the FAIR interpretation, though I think 74s181 has given some adequate reasons for its inclusion. What I am absolutely opposed to is stating simply that the text in question implies a Methodist exhorter. It quite simply does not. Any interpretation that it does needs to be specifically attributed (otherwise this is improper synthesis). I'm certainly willing to work with you on this issue, but the interpretation of that as being "Methodist exhorter" needs to be clearly attributed. Every time I attempt to attribute it, you revert. The Jade Knight 01:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're as far from agreement on the "exhorter" business as it may seem to others. But that FAIR argument really annoys me. It relies on contemporary ignorance of the way language works to make its point. Joseph Smith was not a licensed Methodist exhorter; but the language certainly indicates Smith's participation in a Methodist religious meeting.

What's a straw man about not modifying Les's "mystery remains" paragraph?--John Foxe 10:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that there is a straw man in this paragraph except that you deleted it without consensus. I think this paragraph would make a good introduction to the 'criticism' section, if we are ever allowed to rename it. But since a good deal of the current article 'radiate(s) an implied stance' or, IOW, is criticism, I feel strongly that the paragraph is in the right place already, that is, as an introduction to the 'criticism' section (the whole article). 74s181 13:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How to arrange and where to put the LMS non-mention fact?

The statement under discussion can be found under First_Vision#People_Smith_said_he_told_about_the_vision_in_the_1820s, but I'll include it here for clarity:

Smith said that he made an oblique reference to the vision in 1820 to his mother, telling her the day it happened that he had "learned for [him]self that Presbyterianism is not true,"[73] but Lucy did not mention this conversation in her memoirs...

Under Talk:First_Vision#A_.22critic.22_debate, John Foxe said:

I have no problem reworking the statement through collaborative discussion so that it doesn't lead the reader. But it can't be labeled "criticism," and any apologetic reply must be clearly labeled as such... 10:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am once again going to attempt to reach a consensus, but this time I want to focus on this one issue, as I think it is representative of the core disputes. So, let's try Getting to Yes. John Foxe's statement above could be construed as a 'position', but then he clearly states an interest: 74s181 13:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe said:

My interest is in ensuring that there's no moral equivalence between fact (the lack of any mention of the First Vision by Lucy Mack Smith) and Mormon apologetics... 10:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I share this interest. While I can't know what John Foxe actually had in mind when he wrote this, I agree with the statement as presented above. 74s181 13:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

One of my interests is that any facts presented as facts must truly be facts, and not "...radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization." 74s181 13:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A related interest I have is that any criticism be labeled as such, attributed to a reliable source, and balanced with an apologetic response, if one exists, also from a reliable source. I think that John Foxe shares this interest, but he doesn't agree that the 'JS mentioned' and 'LMS non-mention' facts represnt a POV, rather, he believes that they are 'just facts'. 74s181 13:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that positioning the 'JS mentioned' fact next to the 'LMS non-mention' fact is an organization that radiates an implied stance that JS lied about telling his mother, therefore, he lied about the FV. 74s181 13:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that the statement is misleading because of the section title: "People Smith said he told about the vision in the 1820s" The JS quote doesn't say he told his mother about the FV, it says he told her that he had "learned for [him]self that Presbyterianism is not true." So, a double dose of misdirection. 74s181 13:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As I see it there are two issues. Feel free to add additional issues specific to the 'JS mentioned' and the 'LMS non-mention' facts. 74s181 13:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Is it appropriate to place the 'LMS non-mention' fact next to the 'JS mentioned' fact without identifying and attributing the critical conclusion? 74s181 13:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Do these facts belong in the 'People Smith said he told' section? 74s181 13:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
3. If not in the 'People Smith said he told' section, then where? 74s181 13:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss here, reference the issues by number. Please do not post comments in between the issues. 74s181 13:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no necessary implication that JS lied to his mother. She may have forgotten his mention of a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ in human bodies. (You know how moms can be sometimes.) There's no implied stance about anything. Lucy Mack Smith never mentioned the First Vision; she mentioned Joseph Smith's meetings with Moroni on a number of occasions. It's a simple fact. It cannot be labeled "criticism," and any attempts to explain that fact need to be labeled as Mormon apologetics.--John Foxe 16:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is - why is the fact that LMS didn't mention the FV notable? If I recall correctly, all he did was lean up against the fireplace and say something like "I've learned for myself that Methodism isn't true." Hardly an earth-shaking pronouncement that LMS would remember. Unless there is a reason to mention a fact, it shouldn't be included in an article. The fact that LMS discussed the second vision more than the first emphasizes the position that the significance of the FV wasn't widely realized until much later. Simply stating that she didn't mention it without any indication of why that fact may or may not be significant is (IMHO) misleading. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Presbyterianism. She was a Presbyterian, at least after Alvin's death.

OK. I see your point. There's no problem with dropping the mention there so long as the entire statement is dropped—in other words, no claim that Joseph Smith mentioned the First Vision to his mother immediately after it occurred. How's that?--John Foxe 17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume that John Foxe's willingness to drop the entire statement reflects a 'no' to question 1. However, I have a problem with 'dropping the mention'. If we can confirm that the 'JS mentioned, LMS non-mention, therefore, JS is a liar' POV isn't a significant POV then this statement should be removed. If, however, this POV is 'notable' then it should be included in the article. If it is included in the article then questions 2-3 still need answers. The same is true of the 'JS mentioned FV, LMS said Moroni, therefore, JS is a liar' POV. 74s181 21:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Les; I don't understand what you mean here.--John Foxe 22:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You said you were willing to drop the statement, does that mean that you agree that it is criticism and not 'just a fact'? 74s181 22:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the statement a notable criticism? Does it exist out in the world of reliable sources? If so, we can't just drop it, therefore, we have to figure out where it belongs. 74s181 22:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I was only referring to the first mention, not the one in the "anachronisms" section (if that's what you're referring to). My idea was that we could drop the mention of LMS if we also did not say that Joseph Smith said he told her about it. Once you say he told his mother, then it becomes necessary to say she never said a word about it to anybody.John Foxe 00:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the 'LMS - Moroni' statement in the so-called 'anachronisms' section. I agree that this sort of statement is more appropriate there. So, why not move the 'JS mentioned' fact there, merge it with the 'LMS - Moroni' statement, attribute it, and balance it with an apologetic response like the 'confusion' paragraph. 74s181 00:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have submitted a request for arbitration with the Arbitration Committee. The process isn't as clear as it is for RFM, I've listed all the parties who were on the RFM and posted notices on your talk pages. I looked some of the other submissions and it looks like this is appropriate, hopefully that was ok.

Just commenting here so anyone else is interested will be aware. 74s181 02:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, it is not necessary for you to agree or disagree in order for arbitration to proceed, but you may want to make a statement. 74s181 02:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at some of the recent cases brought up for arbitration, almost all include extravagant histories of incivility (including stalking and threats of law suits), which we've never had here. The committee will pay you no mind, Les.--John Foxe 14:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

74, I would have preferred that no request to arbitration had been made. I believe we are fully capable of handling this petty situation. It was a drastic step borne of frustration, but one that was premature.

I also think that Foxe's rejection of mediation is serious and does not bode well. Of course, upon any request for him posing the questions, as he said that was the reason for his rejection, absolutely zero proposal came forward, which is the same response whenever he is asked to explain himself. This editor is not serious; his behavior is that of a troll. There is nothing productive that comes from him that is not a stepping stone to highly POV and destructive edits to Wikipedia. I have no problem whatsoever of moving forward and reverting everything that is not acceptable from here on out. I would encourage other editors to simply ignore the troll and move forward. Revert freely, liberally, and without reservation; it is obvious that for this article any attempt to observe WP:3RR is a waste of time. Foxe has proven that it is a fool's policy here and one that can be ignored without any consequences whatsoever. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

...make that, by comparison, little incivility.--John Foxe 17:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry. I thought that since mediation had failed, WP:RfAR was the next and last step. It can't hurt, or can it? 74s181 00:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it unfortunate that mediation was rejected here as well. Perhaps it should have been pointed out that the choice was between mediation and arbitration, instead of mediation and the status quo. '74 is certainly pushing the issue here in terms of going after this issue in a more aggressive manner, but I'm not summarily rejecting his intentions either. It is unfortunate that arbitration had to occur, but we have tried the current route of explaining Wikipedia policies and positive cooperation with only more contention and flames as a result. --Robert Horning 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not real comfortable with 'Revert freely, liberally, and without reservation', but if that's all we're left with then I guess that is what we'll have to do. I just don't see how we can make any real progress on this article the way things are. I'm afraid that ignoring him will cause him to abandon what restraint he has. 74s181 00:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone seen any evidence that Foxe has answerd any question when it comes to his plethora of reverts? He has been specifcially asked twice to provide the questions that he thinks the mediation should address so that he can finally feel comfortable accepting mediation; not once but twice and he continues to ignore providing any aswers. That is the work of a Troll; one who is only interested in contention and causing turmoil.

His example is devoid of good faith. There is no need to go further; Foxe has demonstrated that reverting can be done with abandon and admins will not do a bloody thing about it. When you can't beat 'em, join 'em. It does not lead quickly to an article worth two cents, but eventually it will change when the troll starts to be force-fed his own medicine. I learned as a child that bullies hate most being stood up to or to be treated in the same manner in which they treat others. They don't have the stomach for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) 06:54, 26 July 2007.

Changes proposed 7/28/07

While we're waiting for a decision on arbitration, I'd like to continue discussion about some specific, less controversial changes to the article. I think this format has worked well for specific 'sentence by sentence' discussion. 74s181 13:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Smith family religious beliefs / magic section

Old:

In addition to their Christian beliefs, the Smith family practiced ...

New:

Richard Bushman has called the spiritual tradition of the Smith family "a religious melee." Joseph Smith, Sr. insisted on morning and evening prayers, but he was spiritually adrift and had repudiated evangelical religion.<ref>Bushman, 25-26. "If there was a personal motive for Joseph Smith Jr.'s revelations, it was to satisfy his family's religious want and, above all, to meet the need of his oft-defeated, unmoored father." (26-27)</ref> No members of the Smith family were church members in 1820. The family also practiced...

A bit more on JS sr. religion(JF signature)

Originally I was ok with this addition, but now that I have had a chance to check the reference I think that part of it is out of context. JS, Sr. comes from a family of Universalists, strong believers in absolute and unconditional grace. Later in life, as a result of several dreams and visions he becomes convinced that no established church is correct. Clearly he is anti-orthodox but strongly religious, and his later 'magical' practices are a somewhat misguided outgrowth, not a contradiction of his spirituality. I think that the proposed addition implies that he is anti-Christian, clearly this is wrong. It also introduces a bit of POV in the 'personal motive' statement, but since it is attributed I guess that part is ok. 74s181 13:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If we added something earlier in the section about his universalist background I think the above would be ok. How about this? 74s181 13:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Old:

...Christianity at the age of seventy-six.[5] Before Joseph was born, his mother, Lucy Mack Smith, prayed in a grove about her husband's repudiation of evangelical religion[6] and that night had a vision in her sleep, which she interpreted as a prophecy that Joseph, Sr. would later accept the "pure and undefiled Gospel of the Son of God."[7]

Between 1811 and 1819, Joseph Smith, Sr. himself reported seven visions,[8] which, according to Lucy, occurred when he was "much excited upon the subject of religion." The visions confirmed to Smith, Sr. the correctness of his refusal to join any organized religious group and led him to believe that he would be properly guided to his own salvation.[9]

New:

...Christianity at the age of seventy-six.[5] Smith's paternal grandfather, Asael Smith, was influenced by the teachings of John Murray, eventually serving as moderator to a group of Universalists. He imparted a strong belief in universal reconciliation and a distrust of orthodox Christianity to his family, including his son, Joseph Smith, Sr. (Bushman citation here)

Between 1811 and 1819, Joseph Smith, Sr. himself reported seven visions,[8] which, according to his wife, Lucy Mack Smith, occurred when he was "much excited upon the subject of religion." The visions confirmed to Smith, Sr. the correctness of his refusal to join any organized religious group and led him to believe that he would be properly guided to his own salvation.[9]

Before Joseph was born, his mother, Lucy Mack Smith, prayed in a grove about her husband's repudiation of evangelical religion[6] and that night had a vision in her sleep, which she interpreted as a prophecy that Joseph, Sr. would later accept the "pure and undefiled Gospel of the Son of God."[7]

Comments?

Bushman's description is NPOV. He's probably the greatest living expert on the life of Joseph Smith, he's a Mormon patriarch, and the citation to his views is clearly provided. If his views are to be disputed, they need to proved incorrect.--John Foxe 15:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with Bushman's view. It's your interpretation of his view that bothers me. 74s181 21:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the additional paragraph about the Universalism of Joseph Smith's grandfather, it is simply unnecessary in an article about the First Vision. Footnote material at best. Let's suppress the urge to make Wiki articles longer and longer to no good purpose.--John Foxe 15:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't necessary to say that JS, Sr. was raised as a Universalist, then it isn't necessary to say that "...he was spiritually adrift and had repudiated evangelical religion," or any of the other stuff in the reference. 74s181 21:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I see a problem with the introduction of the section, it still talks about 'visions and theophanies', although the section title and contents are now more general. 74s181 13:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we take a break on that, Les, until the arbitration business has been completed.--John Foxe 15:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a break on the intro to the 'Smith family' section, or on any changes to the article? 74s181 21:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented this change. 74s181 11:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Smith's religious confusion

Old:

...William wrote that the prayer was also the suggestion...

New:

...William wrote that his brother's prayer had also been made at the suggestion...

Stylistic tweak (JF signature)

Looks ok to me. 74s181 13:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The new version is better syntactically. "Prayer was the suggestion" is awkward. In English we say, "He suggested that they pray" or "The clergyman suggested that they first offer a prayer."--John Foxe 15:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented this change. 74s181 11:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversing the sequence of two subsections?

In the "Historical context" section, the "Smith family religious beliefs" is first, followed by "Joseph Smith, Jr.". To me, the narrative flows better with the sections reversed - first focus in one the early life of Smith (introducing most of the family), then add the larger context of family religious beliefs.

I'd make the change myself (being bold and all that), but the switch requires tweaking a bit of text (wikilinks, introductory text for some of the people), so I'm posting the suggestion here for feedback. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly warning that you've stepped into a potential minefield here, John. This article (and John Foxe, the pesky non-Mormon) are currently being considered for review by the Arbitration Committee.--John Foxe 15:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the friendly warning. As it turns out, I actually came to this article after reading the ArbComm posting. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I hope you can stick around for the dénouement.--John Foxe 19:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The article had a Smith family section but no Joseph Smith, Jr., section until I added it 21 May. I originally put it in front of the family section. On 30 June I swapped the two sections in a fruitless effort to placate John Foxe. The original justification was that John Foxe wanted the 'magical worldview' right up front. He repositioned the 'magic' portion but left the family section first. I think the justification for the present order is that the family information is only relevant to the FV as background for Joseph Smith, Jr. In other words, it is part of the 'who' of Joseph Smith, Jr., who is the 'who' of the FV, this is the belief system that Joseph Smith, Jr., grew up in. Right now I don't really care what order these two paragraphs appear, but I have proposed a change to the 'family' section, see above. 74s181 21:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Context warning

Foxe nothing that we have discussed has anything to do with being Mormon or non-Mormon. Our disagreements are first and foremost about POV. You have stated a mulitude of times previously that your objective is to demonstrate that Joseph Smith is a fraud. That is POV, that is have a soapbox and an agenda. Our objective is to report facts in a neutral manner in a collaborative process; this is the process that you refuse in which to participate. You insist on forcing everyone to your specific POV and position and revert everything you oppose. You demonstrate ownership of the article which futher complicates an easy process.

You will not gain supporters by yammering on incessantly that it is a religious issue; it is not and has never been. If you gave up your soapbox you would find that your edits begin to build the quality of Wikipedia articles rather than less it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I have made constructive edits at many other articles, working in cooperation with others of quite different views. As a result, Fawn Brodie and Billy Sunday, for example, are now both in the GA category.

2. I have never said that my objective in this article was to prove that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Facts speak for themselves. They need don't need my help.

3. No non-Mormon can ever "own" an article of importance to Mormons.

4. I do not expect to "gain supporters by yammering on incessantly that it is a religious issue." It is a religious issue; but I don't expect to gain supporters by talking about it. The vast majority of non-Mormon Wikipedians have never heard of the First Vision, couldn't care less about it, and would only check out the page if you told them it was a new movie or an old TV series.--John Foxe 18:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I agree with you that John Foxe has an agenda, but I don't think that is relevant. I also have an agenda. The difference is, I work at my agenda by applying the WP rules, but John Foxe works at his agenda by breaking the rules. He has admitted that he doesn't care what the rules are. Yes, John Foxe believes that Joseph Smith, Jr. was a fraud. Ok, that's a valid POV, many people agree with John Foxe. To the extent that John Foxe has WP:RS facts relating to the FV, those facts belong in this article. Facts that relate to Joseph Smith, Jr. AFTER the FV belong in some other article. I have previously said that if John Foxe has a relevant (per WP:UNDUE) fact from a WP:RS that belongs in a Joseph Smith, Jr. article, and is resisted by the editors of such an article, I would be an advocate for the NPOV presentation of such a fact. I meant it, and I still mean it. 74s181 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

But John Foxe doesn't want WP:NPOV presentation of facts. He wants to present opinions as undisputed facts, or he wants a presentation of facts that 'radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.' (WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone). Every time we have gone to the mat on a particular 'historic fact', John Foxe has been forced to admit that it is, in fact, a POV. How does he then respond? Does he properly neutralize the fact as described in WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation? No. After multiple reverts, long discussions on the talk page, more reverts, he finally gives in and either buries the neutralized statement in the footnotes, or he deletes it outright, stating: 'I just don't want any mention of "critics" and "believers" in the text.' 74s181 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, you already know all of this. Why am I going over it again? Because the WP:RFAR#First_Vision is still out there. So far we're two up and one down. Something about the statements that I and others have posted has made all the arbitrators think that this is at least partially a content dispute, even those who voted to accept. I don't know if I'm allowed to edit my statement, but you haven't made a statement yet, Storm Rider, and I'm hoping that you will, and in such a way as to clarify the issue for the arbitrators who haven't yet voted. 74s181 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awakened." 1 Kings 18.27. John Foxe 13:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Elijah is one of my favorite OT prophets. I'll see your one 1 Kings...

And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? (Genesis 18:23)

...and raise you four Isaiahs.

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate,

And the LORD have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land. (Isaiah 6:9-12)

74s181 00:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes proposed 7/30

There has been considerable discussion about the Jensen / Mouw quotes in the lead. I want to propose that we:

1. Move these quotes to the 'anachronisms' section
2. Leave some sort of summary statement behind
3. Rename the 'anachronisms' section to something a little more descriptive of what it contains, since it is not now and has never been just about the 1838 account.

74s181 01:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific?--John Foxe 14:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more... specific? (a quote from OHM, the Icon worshiped in the movie, THX-1138) 74s181 05:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's a rough sketch. 74s181 05:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Old:

Possible anachronisms in the 1838 account

Joseph Smith became involved with at least two Methodist churches...

New:

Criticism of the First Vision

Creedal Christians have found much to criticize in the First Vision. Joseph Smith, Jr. wrote:

Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the methodist preachers who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement, and conversing with him on the subject of religion I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior, he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there was no such thing as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there never would be any more of them.

Today, most critics point to the apparent discrepencies among the various accounts as evidence that Smith fabricated the experience(citation). Even current LDS Church Historian Marlin Jensen, who affirms belief in the vision "with all [his] heart" and who reflects on his own changed understanding of his early journals, admitted being "struck by the difference in [Smith's] recountings." [2] On the other hand, Richard Mouw, an evangelical theologian and student of Mormonism, who rejects Smith's claim that "members of the godhead really appeared" to him, has attributed an instinctive "sincerity to Joseph Smith," a belief that Smith was not "simply making up a story that he knew to be false in order to manipulate people." And so, said Mouw, "I live with the mystery."[3]

Joseph Smith became involved with at least two Methodist churches...

Not sure yet about the summary statement, but I wanted to give you something to chew on. 74s181 05:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The mention of "creedal Christians" is unnecessary here (though I'm flattered). Liberal Christians and, for that matter, atheists have similar views of Mormon ur-stories. There's no reason to call this "criticism." Let the reader make up his own mind without leading him. I would advocate dropping the entire second paragraph and putting the first in chronological order, in Joseph's description of the vision.--John Foxe 13:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A separate section?

I wonder if it's possible to think creatively and work ourselves out of this box we've talked ourselves into: perhaps leaving all the versions of the story in chronological order as they are now but then below them have the section that I've fought so diligently against, a completely new section in which all the Mormon and anti-Mormon POV could be aired in one place.--John Foxe 23:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has had a criticsm section almost from its inception, it became a major area of contention begining about a year ago. COGDEN has objected to a separate criticism section in the past, but maybe we can approach this in a creative way as John Foxe has suggested. Here is a statement of the objection from Wp:npov#Article_structure:

Examples that may warrant attention include:

"Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself...

There has been quite a bit written on Wikipedia about in-line criticism vs criticism sections vs separate criticism articles. The general concensus seems to be that in-line is preferred, but there are times when a separate section is more appropriate. The main concern is when criticism is segregated and 'positive' statements are left in the main body of the article, making the positive look more 'true' than the critical. 74s181 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we can avoid this trap. I think that the vast majority of the information in this article could be presented as truly undisputed facts, that is, these are the accounts, this is what they say, we all agree. It is only when we start making comparisons, pointing out lack of corroboration, etc., that we run into trouble. These criticisms need to be identified as such, attributed and balanced, but the integration of such properly attributed criticism and response in this article would severely impact readability. 74s181 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As I was trying to nail down the official WP policy on criticism sections, I came across this: 74s181 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism in a "Reception" or "Reception history" section

Often Wikipedia articles separate the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received. This is often the clearest (also, this often helps to keep the description of the topic itself neutral). Another advantage might be that a general "reception history" section usually avoids being "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic.

Some recommendations:

• If the reception (history) of a topic is composed of as well positive and negative criticism, and other significant events that usually aren't qualified as "criticism" (e.g. about a book, notes about when major translations appeared,...), it is often better to have a "Reception (history)" section than a "Criticism" section, and to integrate the "criticism" topics in that Reception (history) section;
• "Reception (history)" sections might be a bit more susceptible to accumulation of Trivia, which is a disadvantage compared to straight "Criticism" sections.

Alternatives to "Reception" or "Reception history" as a section title are possible, for instance "Reviews and reactions"; "Studies and reception history"; etc

Criticism integrated throughout the article

Criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow. For example a section entitled "Early success" should not contain one paragraph describing the success of the topic and three paragraphs qualifying or denying that success. This is often why separate criticism sections are created.

This is a guideline, not a policy, but it directly addresses what we're talking about, and it even provides a possible section title - "Reception" or "Reception history". In other words, the title doesn't say this is criticism and apologetic response, it says that what follows is how people have responded to the topic of the article. Another possible title would be "How the First Vision has been received", kind of wordy, but we have a couple of other section titles like that. Maybe just "Reception". 74s181 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I could live with that. What do you think? 74s181 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Reception" in this sense of the word would be a term of art, but that shouldn't be a problem. (Interestingly, the word "reception" is also term of art in the common law.) A more significant question is the bipolar vision that I've talked about before: that everyone is either a "critic" or an "apologist." What we're talking about here is presenting criticism of the current official position of the LDS Church with balancing apologetics. The problem is that Mormonism doesn't fall into neat categories. What about the Community of Christ? What about cultural Mormons, some of whom have temple recommends? What about Michael Quinn, who's homosexual and excommunicated and who still thinks of himself as a Mormon? In other words, how can we justify making the current official position of the LDS church the standard against which any criticism of the First Vision should be measured?--John Foxe 14:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't agree with your viewpoint of critic and apologetic. They are terms for opinions, not people. For example consider the quotes by Mouw and Jensen - a Mormon offering a critical point, and an Evangelical Christian offering an apologetic point. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 15:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have been unclear. My question concerned justifying the use of the current official position of the LDS Church as a benchmark for determining whether any particular comment about the First Vision was critical or apologetic. Nevertheless, Bill's comment does stimulate reflection about the possible awkwardness of say, labeling a particular comment by Richard Bushman, a Mormon patriarch, as "critical."--John Foxe 17:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem labeling a comment as "critical" (provided it is) regardless of who said it. Mouw's comment is a critical comment. The fact that he is the church historian doesn't change that fact. If a position questions or contradicts the official position, it should be called critical; if it supports or agrees, it is apologetic. Just because somebody is called as a patriarch, that doesn't mean they can't voice their opinion about issues. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My question is, how can we justify using the current official position of the LDS Church as a standard by which to measure whether a comment is critical or not? Isn't that a privileging POV right off the bat?--John Foxe 21:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that is the definition of critical and apologetic - whether it questions or supports an official position. As for selecting the LDS Church, since it is the largest group that believes in the First Vision, it makes sense to use their position as a reference point. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 02:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not much time, so short and to the point. In this section, we don't really care which is the 'official' version, unless the criticism is directed specifically at the official version. There are plenty of 'reactions' to the idea of the FV that have nothing to do with official version or not. 74s181 04:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A bit more time now. Followers of the Latter Day Saint movement may care enough to argue about which account is the most correct, but most of the people in the world, if they care at all, only care about whether or not any of the accounts are true, that is, did the event happen at all. Most of the 'response' to the FV has to do with that question. Some responses address particular accounts, but much of what we have been arguing about is account-independent. Some examples from recent debate, all but a few are account-independent: 74s181 06:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• LMS mentioned the Moroni vision, but never mentioned the FV.
• Exhorter debate - did JS 'join' or participate in a church after being told not to.
• Alleged contradictions - doesn't depend on an 'official' version, although this discussion is often framed relative to the JSH / PGP account.
• Abrac / magic
• Money digging.
• Recent attempt to paint JS, Sr. as not a Christian.
• Not published until twenty years after.
• "...never entered into his heart..."
• FV not emphasized by JS immediate successors.
• Comparisons of differences in accounts to examples from New Testament
• Gift for storytelling
• JS 'changed his story'

That's just the most recent discussions. The only recent criticism I could find that was version specific was:

• Land tax records - targets the accounts that say or calculate to 1820.

So, there is no need to choose a version for purposes of critiicsm.

However, if I were going to excerpt from a particular account to provide the 'what' of the FV, it would have to be the JSH / PGP account, because this is the account accepted as most complete and accurate among those people who believed the FV happened. I'm concerned about the current composite account, it might be considered WP:OR, I'd much rather use excerpts from one of the accounts to provide the 'what'. But I've been shot down on this one before. 74s181 06:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's how I imagine the compromise: The order of the article stays pretty much as it is, meaning the accounts remain in chronological order with no privileging. The material in the third lead paragraph and the "anachronisms" move to our new section, which will appear at the very end, after the discussion of the differences between denominations. A sentence or two of the new paragraph will explain that we are using the current official position of the LDS Church as the standard for what is officially believed by Mormons even though we appreciate that it isn't necessarily. Material that relates to JS personally, such as magic, money digging, storytelling, etc. will stay up at the beginning of the article with the material about him and his family.--John Foxe 09:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

...order of the article - Ok. 74s181 12:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

...no privileging - The 'Contemporary beliefs' section acknowledges that the '1838' account is believed by most, etc, if we leave that in place I'm ok with not otherwise privileging. 74s181 12:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

...material... third... "anachronisms"... new section... - Ok. 74s181 12:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

...the very end - I'd like to think about where this goes, not sure if it is better before or after the 'Contemporary beliefs' section, or if maybe the 'contemporary beliefs' section becomes part of the new section. 74s181 12:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A sentence or two... explain... current official position... - As I said, I don't think that most of the 'reactions' are version specific, so I don't think this is necessary as part of leading into the 'reactions'. Each 'reaction' that is version specific can identify which version it is 'reacting' to. Ok? 74s181 12:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Material that relates to JS personally... - I agree that the 'magical worldview' is relevant, but this often ends up looking like a subtle character attack, a critical POV even if it isn't identified as such. For example, the portrayal of JS, Sr. as some kind of anti-Christian 'wizard', look at what has happened with the Asael Smith material. To the extent that information is relevant background to the FV and we can agree on a neutral way to present it, I'm ok, but if we can't reach consensus on a particular 'historical fact', that means it is disputed and therefore must be presented as described in WP:NPOV, specifically (but not limited to) Wp:npov#A_simple_formulation and Wp:npov#Fairness_of_tone. I think we need to work out some principles relating to how much non JS,Jr. material we're going to include. Agree? 74s181 12:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm going to ask a favor, John Foxe. I think the JSH excerpt where JS tells the minister about the FV and he 'reacts' would provide a good opening example to the 'reactions' section. Balance this with a 'reaction' that says there is no evidence that JS told anyone about the FV prior to 1827? 1830?, then fast forward to the present with the Jensen / Mouw quotes. Then go thru the various 'reactions', both pro and con. 74s181 12:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to comment and say I like how you guys are talking this over and working things out calmly and peacefully. Keep up the good work. The Jade Knight 10:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm excited. I made some changes that I thought JF would just revert and he didn't, he offered an alternate arrangement, I modified that a bit, and although the section is now longer than I think either of us wanted, we managed to edit together without reverting. And now we're trying to reach a compromise on a really thorny point, I think the result on this particular issue may be something better than either of us would have produced had we had our own way. 74s181 12:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm always hopeful, I think we can postpone the self-congratulation until we actually hammer out this new section, which will consist almost entirely of opposing POV.

If you want to put the section somewhere other than at the end, that's not a problem for me.

I do think we need some sort of statement noting that for purposes of discussion, we are treating the current official position of the LDS Church as the standard for what is believed by Mormons in order to make clear what's being criticized or buttressed by apologetics.

Now, Les, when you insist on adding material for Asael Smith and Joseph Smith, Sr., you've got to take the bad with the good. I promise not to put this in the article, but JS,Sr. was a gullible, a drinker, a petty deceiver, and a general loser whose son Alvin basically took responsibility for the family though he had hardly reached maturity.--John Foxe 15:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

...postpone the self-congratulation - I agree, I'm just feeling positive. 74s181 02:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

...hammer out this new section - I'm creating a temporary workspace for this, Talk:First Vision/reaction 74s181 02:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

...statement...official position - I'm still don't see why this is needed, as I said, I think the biggest argument is did something happen, not which account best describes what happened. What do you have in mind? 74s181 02:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

...adding material... bad with the good - My biggest concern wasn't that JS, Sr. was being painted as a 'bad' man, but that he was being painted as an anti-Christian wizard. He was raised in a different Christian tradition - absolute, unconditional salvation for all, thru the grace of Jesus Christ. To me this seems more honest and internally consistent than the 'grace, not works, but only for some' doctrine that many protestants profess. He may not have been a Calvinist, but JS, Sr. was definitely a Christian, no more confused or 'spiritually adrift' than many Christians today. 74s181 02:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything depends on how you define "Christian." Jan Shipps once wrote an essay on Mormonism and Christianity without defining either, and to my mind, she might have saved the trees.--John Foxe 16:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

...depends on how you define "Christian." I agree. In spite of the ecumenical movement most people continue to define 'real' Christians as those who profess the same creeds as the particular faith organization they affiliate with. LDS make a distinction between Jesus Christ's true church, and the members of it. In my opinion, one can be a Christian without belonging to Christ's true church. However, I know that some Protestants teach that living a Christian life is the definition of belonging to Christ's true church, that there is no other definition of Christ's true church, but in the next breath will say that it is impossible for Mormons to be Christians. IMHO, That Does Not Compute. 74s181 18:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposals for new 'reception' section

John Foxe and I have been having a back and forth discussion about a possible new section. I broke this off as a new section here to cover discussion of this, and created a page here to illustrate different approaches. 74s181 01:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Although this has so far been primarily a back and forth discussion between 74s181 and John Foxe, I want to be clear that it is not my intent to exclude others, I don't think John Foxe would want to do that either. Feel free to participate in the discussion here, or offer your own proposal if you want. Just make a copy of the proposal that is closest to the way you think it should be, add it after the last proposal (currently, John Foxe's proposal) and before the References section. 74s181 01:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the discussion on this talk page, ok? 74s181 01:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I've created a temporary workspace so we can try some different arrangements. I've included the full article outline as it presently stands. I've included abreviated statements to show where things are, and full text of the parts we're talking about moving around. I made a copy of this and modified it as my first proposal. I suggest that we follow this procedure, each editor who wants to propose something different should make a copy of whatever they want to start with, paste it in under their own header, and make their changes. I think discussion should continue here so that everyone can follow along. 74s181 03:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And, BTW, let's focus on general outline first, once we have a concensus on that we can discuss specific wording. 74s181 04:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I made some suggestions in brackets on the "reaction" page, but I'm not sure that's what you intended, Les. Let me know if that's not how you want to proceed. I thought "reception" would be a nice word for the heading because it's vague enough that we could subsume almost anything under it. Also it would be nice to have a historical background. I'm not sure when the FV started to become a more important doctrine in the LDS Church, but I assume it was around the turn of the twentieth century and that if we looked in the right places we could come up with a rough date and a reason.--John Foxe 16:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I copied the version you edited, and created a new main section called John Foxe Proposal 1. I then removed your comments from my proposal, and moved things around a bit in response to your proposal. Some comments: 74s181 02:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1 ...begin with a historical introduction - The quote from the JSH / PGP account presents a description of the oldest reaction to the First Vision on record. I realize that you probably don't believe that the described encounter actually occured, so it would be appropriate to present a properly attributed statement to that effect, but read my comment below on 'intro' first. I thought that the "First Vision was not emphasized" statement fit really well between JS, Jr. quote and "Today, many critics point". I thought it worked well to bridge the past to the present. 74s181 02:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

2 Let's try to avoid long quotations... - I think that this is a 'style' issue that we may not be able to come to an agreement on. I don't like to paraphrase because I am afraid I may change the meaning or inadvertently introduce my own POV. I prefer to let the reader decide for himself what the original writer was saying. However, you are welcome to take a shot at paraphrasing this particular paragraph, let me see what you have in mind. 74s181 02:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, a comment about the intro to the 'reaction' section. I wanted to properly frame discussion, but there is the problem of neutrality. The JS, Jr. quote expresses a particular POV, that is, the FV really happened, JS, Jr. really told a minister about it, the minister really reacted negatively. I believe that I have properly neutralized the quote by saying that JS, Jr., wrote this, but I don't know if that is sufficiently neutralizing. I know that there is criticism out there of this particular event, experts saying that there is no record of any persecution relating to the FV, etc. This POV also needs to be presented. Does it necessarily have to be presented right by the JS, Jr. quote, or, can we treat the first part of this section as an introduction, and go into more detail later in the section? This also affects the BY / JT paragraph. 74s181 02:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up a different version for me. I've fleshed out my outline a bit more. I don't know whether you'd prefer to have all the critical material in one section, followed by another section of LDS apologetics or whether you'd like to have the criticism answered point by point by apologetics.--John Foxe 19:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

<-Unindent 74s181 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, I took a look at your latest outline. I have a few comments. 74s181 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

1 I see you've removed any mention of the type of disputes from the article lead. Why? 74s181 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. If we think it necessary, it could always be readded.--John Foxe 15:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

2 You've replaced the JS quote with a summary, I thought you said paraphrase. Ok, I took a shot at paraphrasing, see Talk:First_Vision/reaction#74s181_Proposal_1. 74s181 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, a summary is all I think we need.--John Foxe 15:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

3 You've also removed the Jensen / Mouw quotes. I am ok with removing them from the article lead, but I think they belong in the new 'reception' section. 74s181 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem; the quotes (or portions of them at least) can be added back after we build the paragraph and if we still think they're relevant then.--John Foxe 15:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

4 I would prefer to see a short intro that frames the discussion, then some sort of structured presentation. I'd like to see each assertion of disbelief followed by the apologetic response, and each assertion of belief followed by the critical response. That is, it isn't all about criticism and apologetic responses, there are also believer assertions to which critics respond. In fact, it would be easy enough to frame the entire discussion that way - Mormons assert the FV, critics respond. But I think it would be more neutral to present the accounts without comment, express or implied, then we have the new section, essentially, "JS, Jr. spoke and wrote about the FV, and people responded in various ways". 74s181 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Like you, I prefer point-by-point analysis.--John Foxe 15:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What I really don't want to see is for this new section to become a dumping ground for all sorts of random criticism. I'd like to work out an outline. Let's look beyond criticism, and focus on reaction to the FV. Some react negatively. Some react positively. Within those two divisions are additional classifications. 74s181 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the abreviated JS, Jr. quote provides some ideas for an outline of the types of negative reaction:

1 ...all of the devil (JS saw a Satan, not the Father and the Son)

2 ...all such things had ceased with the apostles (God's work was finished with the original Apostles)

3 ...no such thing as visions or revelations in these days / there never would be any more of them (closed canon)

To this we can add another main category of common criticisms:

4 ...If God had a revelation to give he wouldn't have chosen JS, Jr. because JS, Jr. was not fit to be a prophet of God for reasons X, Y, Z, etc. 74s181 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So, can we talk about an outline before going vertical on the specific wording? 74s181 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For purposes of this section, I think you'll have to abandon the notion that the most important criticisms of the First Vision originate from evangelical Christians. Instead, think of the most salient attacks as having originated from atheists. An atheist would not believe in the devil, wouldn't care when revelation or visions ceased, and would argue that God never chose anyone to be a prophet. One of the strength of my anachronisms (and they are truly anachronisms as well as criticisms) is that no religious presuppositions are required. That's what we require here, criticisms that require no religious presuppositions.--John Foxe 15:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said anything about 'evangelical Christians'. I think that most Christian institutions outside of the LDS movement are pretty united in their rejection of the FV, in fact, I believe that the FV was the catalyst for the modern ecumenical movement. But that's a different discussion. 74s181 12:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the revised list.

1 ...all of the devil (JS saw Satan, not the Father and / or the Son)

2 ...all such things had ceased with the apostles (God's work was finished with the original Apostles)

3 ...no such thing as visions or revelations in these days / there never would be any more of them (closed canon)

4 If God had a revelation to give he wouldn't have chosen JS, Jr. because JS, Jr. was not fit to be a prophet of God for reasons X, Y, Z, etc.

5 There is no God, therefore, the creation, flood, fall, virgin birth, miracles, atonement, resurrection, first vision, etc. didn't happen.

Is that what you meant? Personally, I doubt that an athiest is going to waste any time on JS, Jr., or the FV, his target is much larger, but maybe this is a POV that should be included. 74s181 12:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the points on your "revised list" are mentioned on the "First Vision" page of Fairwiki apologetics, which I should think would be one of the most thorough examples of Mormon attempts to defend the historicity of the First Vision.--John Foxe 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I did a search for "First Vision" at http://www.pcusa.org and found two references, neither of which said anything about the First Vision as described by Joseph Smith. Does that mean that the Presbyterian church has no objections to JS, Jr's. First Vision? 74s181 00:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You've lost me here, Les. Why should the PCUSA site have any more references to Mormonism than an LDS site have references to liberal Presbyterianism?--John Foxe 19:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I blew it. I accepted your statement about fairwiki.org. I was just now looking, surprise, surprise, there are discussions of many types of criticism other than pure historicity. I shouldn't be surprised. 74s181 04:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, although 'anachronisms' is a descriptive word for a particular kind of criticism, most people don't have a clue what it means. For these reasons I think it is a poor choice for the main section title, but if you want to use it in one of the subsection titles that is fine with me. 74s181 12:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've updated my proposal with an outline. 74s181 03:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to check and see if there was anything useful in the 'no facts were harmed' restructuring that I attempted back in May. I was a bit surprised at how similar my present outline is to the outline of the 'Criticism' section of that version of the article. Anyway, I've copied it onto the reaction page here because I think it illustrates how some of the criticism that was scattered throughout the article at that time could be collected together and integrated into something other than a dumping ground. I'm NOT proposing that we adopt the entire old outline, but the way the criticism was organized then may be useful for the new 'reaction / reception' section. 74s181 17:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No one else seems to be participating in the work space you set up, Les. Does this indicate a lack of interest by other Mormons in creating a separate section of warring POVs?--John Foxe 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I suspect that this indicates a 'wait and see' attitude among other editors, that is, they are waiting to see if your repentence is genuine. Or, maybe they are busy elsewhere, or it maybe they are tired. Or, perhaps they are just not as naive as I. 74s181 23:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

For my part I've been on vacation with my family for the last week, and have had limited amounts of time to spend on the computer. 74s181 23:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What about you, John Foxe? Have you stopped participating in this discussion? Your recent edits suggest that you're no longer interested in the idea of a separate 'response / reaction' section. 74s181 23:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

One reason that I fought the notion for so long was that I feared it would lead to never-ending squabbles instead of stability. Your decision to bring in a biographical sketch of Joseph Smith made me groan for the same reason. Furthermore, I believe your interest in turning the new section into a comparison between Mormonism and evangelical Christianity is wrongheaded. (As I said above, none of the points on your "revised list" are mentioned on the "First Vision" page of Fairwiki apologetics.) Are you still committed to creating this section even though it will have to accommodate full-bore anti-Mormon attacks on the historicity of the First Vision?--John Foxe 14:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern: I apologize if the following comments seem somewhat harsh and not very wiki-friendly. Before judging me I suggest you read thru the talk page archives of this article over the last year. 74s181 12:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"...fought the notion..." Yes, John Foxe, you fought long and hard to remove the criticism section which has been present in this article almost from the begining, and you continue to fight to hide the criticism throughout the article. 74s181 12:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"...never-ending squabbles..." I think the only 'never-ending squabbles' relating to the JS, Jr. section have been about the 'abrac' stuff. JS, Jr. is the 'who' of the FV, he needs to be mentioned, but we shouldn't attempt to supercede the existing Joseph Smith articles. Unfortunately, that is the direction you have taken us with 'Abrac', 'Thomas Paine', etc., none of which are mentioned in the primary articles. 74s181 12:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"...comparison between Mormonism and evangelical Christianity..." I really don't know why you keep bringing this up. There is already a WP article on this, Mormonism and Christianity, I am somewhat familiar with it and believe me, I have no desire to rehash those discussions here. However, criticisms of the FV based on doctrines of creedal Christianity should be mentioned and linked back to Mormonism and Christianity. 74s181 12:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"...none of the points on your 'revised list' are mentioned..." I've heard these criticisms all my life, I assume they are documented somewhere. Obviously, if a criticism can't be supported via WP:RS it has no place in the article. If you have a better idea for how the critical response should be organized, let's see it, I've given you a place to put it. 74s181 12:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"...committed to creating this section..." My position has always been that the section already exists, has always existed in this article, but that you, John Foxe, forced a change in the name of the section to protect the guilty and confuse the innocent. 74s181 12:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"...full-bore anti-Mormon attacks on the historicity of the First Vision?" I prefer full-bore, identified criticism to the present article which "...still radiate(s) an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization." (WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone) 74s181 12:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, you have previously resisted every effort to identify and attribute criticism, you seemed to prefer to delete criticism rather than have it identified as such. I thought we were making progress on this point when you reluctantly suggested a section for criticism, but now I am starting to wonder if this was just a stalling tactic or a straw man. However, I'm going to once again try to assume good faith and ask, do you want to continue this discussion? Or should I assume that the cease fire is over? 74s181 12:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still in unless you insist on discussing Mormonism and Christianity in this article. Criticisms of the First Vision included here should require no religious presuppositions.--John Foxe 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that criticism pretty much has to involve Mormonism and Christianity. An atheist would dismiss the FV because there is no God. A non-Christian deist would dismiss it because Jesus isn't God. It is only a non-Mormon Christian who would criticize the event. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If what you say is true, why doesn't FAIR treat the defense of the First Vision that way? As I said above, to be included here criticisms of the First Vision should require no religious presuppositions. Anachronisms are anachronisms whether you believe in God or not. Joseph Smith's possible motive for creating a new story in 1838 is the same regardless of religion. On the other hand, whether Satan inspired the First Vision is not something that can be debated here because it requires several religious presuppositions. The focus should remain on the incongruities of the First Vision. Whether mainstream Christianity has its own incongruities is beside the point.--John Foxe 21:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All that is required for a criticism "...to be included here..." is a WP:RS reference. This includes "...whether Satan inspired the First Vision...". Nothing should be "...debated here...", debate implies conclusion, what belongs here is a report of the debate, "...religious presuppositions..." has nothing to do with it. 'Anachronisms' are a form of criticism and should be in the article to the extent that there are WP:RS references. "...Whether mainstream Christianity has its own incongruities..." is as relevent as 'Abrac' or 'Tom Paine'. 74s181 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing comparing "mainstream Christianity" (an undefined term) with Mormonism is relevant here, nor is anything that requires religious presuppositions. I don't blame you for trying to shift the terms of the debate—the evidence for the historicity of the First Vision is so pathetic—but what you're trying to do is what the current pooh-bah of Iran does when the U.S. accuses him of human rights abuses. He says, "The U.S. dropped the bomb at Hiroshima, and that's far worse." Our focus here is Joseph Smith's First Vision. If you want to criticize St. Paul's first vision, you need to comment in that article.--John Foxe 21:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who brought up "mainstream Christianity", not I.

I don't blame you for trying to shift restrict the terms of the debate—the evidence for most common criticisms the historicity of the First Vision is are so pathetic... 74s181 02:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think said anything about Paul, but I understand the difference between the documentation available for Paul's vision (the infallible Holy Bible, AKA Sola Scriptura) and JS, Jr's. writings. However, JS, Jr. and everyone who knew him personally are unavailable for interviews, cross examination, etc., so there really is no way to 'prove' that the FV did or did not happen. There is the believer POV, and the non-believer POV. Within those POVs there are different camps, with different emphasis. So, can we get back to trying to agree on an outline for the 'response' section, or ? 74s181 02:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we in agreement that there will be no attempt to compare the First Vision with Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter), just flat-out attacks on the historicity of the canonical First Vision story with refutations of those attacks from LDS apologetics?--John Foxe 19:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, I really don't understand what you're so anxious about. 74s181 21:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"...no attempt to compare the First Vision with Christianity (or any other religion..." I think I agree. The FV is a belief shared by members of the LDS movement. It is not a religion itself. How could it be compared to Christianity? Maybe you mean comparing the FV to similar events in Christianity, if such comparison is not a tiny minority POV and there is WP:RS, then it should be included. 74s181 21:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"...just...attacks on the historicity..." I disagree with 'just'. Any attack that represents a non-tiny minority POV with citations from WP:RS should be included, including but no limited to historicity. 74s181 21:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"...of the canonical First Vision..." I think I understand that your goal is to discredit TCoJCoLdS, so the canonical account is the only one you care about, I generally agree that the 1838 / JSH / PGP is the one that matters most, but I wouldn't restrict criticism strictly to this account. 74s181 21:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"...refutations of those attacks from LDS apologetics..." LDS writers have more to say on the subject of the FV than responding to criticism, to the extent that such POV is non-tiny minority, and meets WP:RS, it should be included. 74s181 21:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm baffled by your reply. Was that a "yes" or a "no"?--John Foxe 21:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I got long winded. 74s181 23:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "...no attempt to compare the First Vision with Christianity..." but I think the statement is meaningless, it would be like comparing an apple to a shoe. Think about that for a minute. 74s181 23:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. I should have said "compare Mormonism with Christianity."--John Foxe 11:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the FV article should not attempt to compare Mormonism to 'Christianity', except in the sense that 'mainstream' Christianity says that the FV couldn't have happened because the heavens are closed, that is, God doesn't appear to man, there are no longer visions or revelations, etc., and Mormonism says, no, the heavens are not closed, these things happened to JS, Jr., they happen today. 74s181 13:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I oppose any mention of mainstream Christianity, an undefined term that could include anything from Unitarianism to snake handlers. The focus must remain on the inconsistencies of the First Vision and cannot be shifted to another topic just because the historical evidence is so unfavorable to Mormonism.--John Foxe 19:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that 'mainstream' is not the best term to use in the article. I used 'traditional' in my lead paragraph proposal below, but I don't really like that label either. Maybe a better phrase would be 'common Christian doctrines', but I'd like to know what label you would prefer. 74s181 22:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with "...just flat-out attacks on the historicity of the canonical First Vision story with refutations..." because there are many criticisms other than 'historicity', and many LDS writers have things to say about the FV that are not 'apologetics', or, IOW, are not 'just' responses to criticism. 74s181 23:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true. But my question, perhaps ineptly worded, referred to whether or not you would agree to construct a paragraph that only addressed the historicity of the canonical First Vision story with refutations of those attacks from LDS apologetics.--John Foxe 11:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that 'historicity' is one of the types of criticism, it can / should have its own paragraph or section, and the refutations from LDS apologists should be in the same place. 74s181 13:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the historical inconsistencies of the First Vision are the only kinds of criticism that should be discussed in this article because history is susceptible to evidence gathering. Whether the "heavens are closed" or not, is not.--John Foxe 19:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You've made your position clear, but Wikipedia requires that all significant views that have been published by reliable sources must be included, and this policy is absolute and non-negotiable. 74s181 22:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This article reads terribly.. needs major rework

I came to this article hoping for some neat pictures and accounting of the first vision. However, all I got were a bunch of lame back and forth believed/not believed mixed in the article (well, I did get my neat pictures, thanks :). Anyhow, all the pro/con rubbish mixed in makes the article very hard to read.. All this posturing gets in the way.

In a lot of articles with disputed topics like this, they separate out the two sides. Why can't one POV be in one section, with the facts etc to back that up, and the other in a different section with those facts and POV, instead of trying to mix both POVs throughout the entire article? That way each section can present its view and be done with it.

Also, large chunks of the text seem completely off topic and irrelevant to the event of the First Vision (most of the Historical Context section doesn't seem to have anything to do with it.. comes off more as a blatant POV against the Smith family).

Sorry I couldn't be more constructive in my criticism. From the looks of the Talk page you guys already are having lots of troubles here. --72.200.73.175 05:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Two people; two opinions. I am super impressed by this article. See me wax effusive below. Tom Haws 20:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Another opinion. I had the same reaction as the anonymous editor 72.200.73.175 when I first started editing the article about 4 months ago. It has been a long, hard struggle to get to where we are today, there has been improvement but we have a long way yet to go. I am cautiously optimistic that we may have turned a corner, time will tell. 74s181 02:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you distill for me your concerns? A brief summary of your POV might help. And here's mine for your benefit: I have no trouble believing in the core sincerity and effect of the vision. I think it is a beautiful example of the accessibility of heaven for even a youngster. I think the history of its re-interpretation, re-telling, re-framing, and re-working is a fascinating topic and an important one. I think it's appropriate and important for the article to explain how the vision is canonized and used modernly and how is has been throughout the intervening years by various groups. I think it is valuable and appropriate for the article to present the research of historians indicating contemporary reactions. Tom Haws 17:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're asking me or 72.200.73.175. My personal POV after reading the various accounts, the criticism of the FV, and working on this article for the last four months is this: I believe that the Father and the Son appeared to JS, Jr., more or less as described in the PGP/ JSH account. Maybe it was 1821 and not 1820, maybe JS, Jr., didn't quote Them perfectly. These are minor issues relative to the big picture, which is, JS., Jr. prayed in the woods to know which church to join, the Father and the Son appeared, and they told JS., Jr. that all existing churches were wrong. Obviously there are a lot of people who have a different POV including some otherwise faithful members of TCoJCoLdS. Since this is Wikipedia we have to present the whole picture, and I'm up for that. My biggest concern with this article has always been the overall negative tone of the article which comes from interpretations of fact being stated as undisputed fact, rather than being properly identified and atrributed as someone's opinion, and balanced where appropriate. 74s181 18:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom, you've been around here a long time and have much more experience with these things than I do. I'd like your opinion on some of key issues that have been the focus of major disagreement, even among some of the LDS editors. 74s181 18:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Instead of presenting a composite account as the article does now, I think we should present the 1838 / JSH / PGP account as the representative account or the 'who/what/where/when/why' of the FV, because a) the JSH / PGP account is believed to be the most complete and correct by the vast majority of those who accept the FV as fact, and b) most of the criticism is relative to this account. I think this would have to properly introduced and explained, and that the other accounts should also be summarized and presented more or less as they are now. I think such a presentation would be consistent with WP:UNDUE. 74s181 18:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
2. I think it is better to present the event using excerpts from the accounts rather than summarizing or paraphrasing. For an example of one attempt, see [2]. Yes, some of the excerpts may be too long, especially in 'Reaction to the Vision', but I think it is better to let JS, Jr. speak in his own words as much as possible. WP is not paper. 74s181 18:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
3. I think several parts of the article "...radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization" per WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone. One solution would be to properly identify and attribute each criticism as it is presented, per WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation and WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements. However, for a subject as controversial as this one, constant attribution and balancing of POV can make the article difficult to read. We're experimenting with a separate section of the article titled 'Reaction to the FV' or 'Reception of the FV', with the idea of leaving the undisputed, strictly neutral facts in the main body, and moving all of the controversial statements into this new section, as described in Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Reception.22_or_.22Reception_history.22_section. There is both pro and con discussion on this in various WP policy and guideline pages, I've presented some of these arguments above (see [[3]]), I'd like your opinion on which format (constant back and forth or separate 'reaction' section) is appropriate for this article. 74s181 18:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Base on 1838 version

• Disagree Fair heed to all Mormonism historians doesn't support that approach. If the article were First Vision (Latter-day Saints) I would agree. Tom Haws 15:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Either I'm way out of sync on this point, or maybe you've been talking to COGDEN <g>. Either way, my opinion is that First Vision (Latter-day Saints) would be a WP:POVFORK. 74s181 13:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course you are right. It was only a hypothetical example to point out that I believe basing on the 1838 version might be against WP:OWN. Tom Haws 16:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Prefer citation excerpts over paraphrases

• Agree. Tom Haws 15:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If we change from paraphrasing to excerpts, do we excerpt the 1838 account for the "What Smith said he saw" section? If not, which account, and why? Or, do we leave it as a composite, and excerpt each account for the additional details provided? I think the 1838 account has precedence because it is the majority POV, IOW, the account believed to be most accurate and complete by the vast majority of those who believe the event happened at all. Other accounts represent minority POV of what happened and should also be presented but not given prominence, per WP:UNDUE. 74s181 13:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have some difficulty with what you are saying. It might be a good idea to talk about WP:UNDUE, WP:OWN, and the notion of majority below. Tom Haws 16:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Move back and forth exchange to a reaction section

• Disagree I'm unclear about what is reaction and what is presentation. The First Vision is enshrouded today in reaction and controversy. That is core to the subject. How can we present in good faith a article "main section" that ignores the uncertainties and controversies? If the article were First Vision (Latter-day Saints) I would agree. Tom Haws 15:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the lead should explicitly introduce the idea of controversy. It only does so now indirectly, thru the Jensen / Mouw quotes, which other editors want to remove from the lead. After the lead, I think there is a set of undisputed facts, plus two major POV's to be presented, 1) these are the things that JS, Jr. asserted (the account summaries without comment), 2) this is what believers believe and why, and 3) this is what non-believers believe and why. I do not want to bury or hide the criticism, my position is that the criticism is hidden in the article now, I just want to see it be properly identified, attributed and balanced. If the criticism is done in-line, and if each bit of criticism is properly identified, attributed, and balanced, the article will be unreadable, that is why the article originally had a criticism section, but John Foxe has fought hard to remove all identification of 'criticism' from the article. I found WP suggestions on how to handle such a situation, rather than calling it 'criticism' we can call it a 'reaction' or 'response' to the JS, Jr. assertion and the LDS movement belief that the FV happened. IOW, JS asserted X, some people believed, many more did not. 74s181 13:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I agree with what you are saying. In other words, I believe I support what you are trying to do as expressed here. Tom Haws 16:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Abrac

I doubt that anything in the world can hold a candle to the even-handed treatment given in en.wikipedia to difficult articles about the LDS movement like this one. It neither weeps nor smirks. And it informs and informs and informs. However, there appears to be a misinterpretation regarding Lucy Smith's statement about the faculty of Abrac. Here's the full quote.

"I shall change my theme for the present, but let not my reader suppose that because I shall pursue another topic for a season that we stopt our labor and went at trying to win the faculty of Abrac, drawing magic circles or soothsaying, to the neglect of all kinds of business. We never during our lives suffered one important interest to swallow up every other obligation. But whilst we worked with our hands, we endeavored to remember the service of and the welfare of our souls."

It's possible that Lucy is referring to a real magic dabbling their family engaged in. It's also possible she is using a figure of speech or hyperbole to express that they weren't twiddling their thumbs. I would like to include the full quote, as it wouldn't be a lot more material, and it would let the reader judge for himself. As this is the sole reference in Lucy's work to any such activity, the link is tenuous at best, though it does show she was comfortable with the vocabulary of the prevailing forms of folk magic. I would prefer the article went no further than asserting that much. Thoughts? Tom Haws 20:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"claimed" -> "said", good call. I was never comfortable with "claimed" but the only other neutral word I could come up with was "wrote", that is used in some places but doesn't really fit here. "Said" says it all, what he "said" isn't necessarily so, but the fact that he "said" it is indisputable and the word is more neutral. 74s181 14:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 'Abrac', there has been a great deal of discussion about this here, here, here, and here. At one point the article contained the entire quote as you presented it above. I would also prefer to see longer excerpts in the body of the article, I think that when we paraphrase, summarize, or take short excerpts like was done with the 'abrac' quote it is too easy to introduce our own POV. John Foxe objects to this, he says that people will skip these long quotes. I don't agree with his position but I'm trying to work with him and reach some kind of compromise / consensus. 74s181 14:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, although this may be the only mention by LMS of 'Abrac', I believe she also mentions money digging, and there is the quote from a cousin of Emma's who wanted JS, Jr. kicked out of the Methodist class because he was a 'practicing necromancer'. Clearly there were some things that the Smith family did that are objectionable to modern-day Christians. I have struggled to maintain a balanced portrayal of the family that includes the fact that they were believing Christians in spite of whatever other faults they had. 74s181 14:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and put in the whole quote, though, on second thought, I can't remember why the article even went there. But I am sure there's a reason.  :-) . Tom Haws 19:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The article 'went there' because of the 'magical worldview' theory. The 'abrac' stuff was introduced by another editor in an attempt to 'balance' the portrayal of JS, Jr. I think we need the quote in-line, so I changed that, after restoring the anonymous editor's reversion of your edit. 74s181 02:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done. Thanks. Tom Haws 14:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The full quotation here is fine because it makes clear that LMS was unashamed of the family's magical practices. I've tried to tighten up the prose a bit. For instance, it's not "an early draft of her memoirs" because (so far as we know), there was only one.--John Foxe 19:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that there are two known manuscripts, and neither was published exactly as written. 74s181 23:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We're both a bit right and a bit wrong here. Vogel says that Martha Jane Knowlton Coray, a Nauvoo schoolteacher recorded LMS's narrative in the winter of 1844-45. By the spring she expanded her notes into a "preliminary manuscript" and with LMS's assistance revised it. Coray's husband prepared two final versions, one of which was presented to LMS and later published in Liverpool in 1853. The other, with virtually no substantive differences, is in the LDS Church Archives. Once published, the Biographical Sketches was "suppressed by Brigham Young, who condemned it as inaccurate" and "ordered its destruction." (EMD 1: 227.) The "preliminary manuscript" is also in the LDS Church Archives.--John Foxe 13:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have Lavina Fielding Anderson's critical edition of the memoirs, and from how I read it, the quote in question is from the original Coray dictation. "In her narrated memoirs", "In a draft of her memoirs", "In the original draft of her memoirs" are all okay by me. Such identification might be polite as an explanation to LDS who have a later edition and can't find the quote. Otherwise, I don't think the identifier matters much.

See above re: the source of the quote. But I also want to say that to me, Lucy's mention of Abrac etc seems a form of humor. I think saying she is referring to the family's folk magic is a stretch. I think less is more here, and if there were a way to avoid pinning Lucy down inappropriately, I think it would be good. I will try an edit. Tom Haws 14:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the beauty of a full quotation in a case where the context is obscure. You can view it as "humor" whereas I can see it as an attempt to blunt the charge of family laziness emphasized in Howe. (For what it's worth, "In a draft of her memoirs" is probably the most accurate description of the source.)--John Foxe 15:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well put.  :-) Tom Haws 23:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I view 'abrac' as barely relevant to the FV, more appropriate in another article. I view 'abrac' as yet another attempt to lead the reader to form a negative opinion about JS, Jr. I view 'abrac' as thorns that have been sown to choke the truth before it has a chance to grow. But I don't insist that 'abrac' be removed, only that it be identified as a form of criticism and properly attributed. 74s181 21:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"reworking, condensing, and pushing controversial matters into footnotes"

A recent edit has the comment "reworking, condensing, and pushing controversial matters into footnotes". This is not how controversy is supposed to be handled. Why is this being done? 74s181 11:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason errors shouldn't be corrected, syntax improved, and duplication eliminated.--John Foxe 14:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Religious melee ????

Did Bushman really say the Smith family was a religious melee? If so, he used the wrong word. The correct word is melange. It should be corrected to "melange" or sic-ified. Tom Haws 14:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bushman says, "The Smiths were exposed to a conglomeration of doctrines and attitudes, some imported from Europe, others springing up in New England, none sorted or ranked by recognized authority, all available for adoption as personal whim or circumstances dictated. The result was a religious melee." (26) "Melee" can mean confused hand-to-hand fighting, but it can also mean a free-for-all or "any confused and tumultuous mingling." (so the AHD). The difference between "melange" and "melee" is similar to the distinction between a melting pot and a mixing bowl.--John Foxe 14:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess you don't think sic is necessary. OK.  :-) Tom Haws 15:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, WP:OWN, majority, and WP:NPOV

I think that for this article the indisputed facts are few and simple, and only they should go in the intro. And it appears that is how the article stands. Adding more, such as the 1838 account, as the introduction of the subject, seems to amount to WP:OWN-ership. 74 mentioned that the vast majority of the believers adhere canonically to the 1838 account, but this doesn't sit well with me. I don't want to try to defend that if I can avoid it. But calling the LDS Church's canonical stance the consensus opinion seems, well, POV and dishonest. Tom Haws 19:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The undisputed facts are what the accounts say. That is, there is no dispute that the 1832 account says what it says, that the 1838 account says what it says, etc. However, any comparison of the accounts that attempts to lead the reader to to conclude that there are contradictions, etc., is an opinion and needs to be identified as such, attributed, balanced, etc. 74s181 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Tom Haws 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is fine as far as it introduces the FV. All that is lacking in the lead is a mention that some reject the FV, and maybe some kind of summary of the types of criticism. The Jensen / Mouw quotes imply a particular type of criticism, but don't explicitly identify it. 74s181 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Tom Haws 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If I added my own POV and reverted any attempt to edit what I had added, then that would be WP:OWN. The closest thing I have done to that is the Jensen / Mouw quotes in the lead, the only reason I feel so strongly about this is that John Foxe has refused to allow any mention of criticism in the lead. Even so, I have defended the presence of the quotes by discussion here on the talk page, not by using reverts. 74s181 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. My bad. You are right. I invoked WP:OWN improperly. The type of ownership I intended was subject ownership, and it is covered by WP:NPOV only, I guess. Tom Haws 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the 1838 account, Gordon B. Hinckley says that the 1838 account is the account, and he is the person most qualified to speak for TCoJCoLdS. With 13 million members TCoJCoLdS is more than ten times as large as all the other LDS groups combined, so this is definitely the majority POV. 74s181 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that one man, even if he has 13 million supporters, is still only one opinion; not 13 million. I think calling it 13 million is undue. At the same time, there are really the potential sensibilities of 13 million supporters to consider. With that I agree. Tom Haws 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I do think it would be appropriate to say in the article that Gordon B. Hinckley says that the 1838 account is the account, and he is the person most qualified to speak for TCoJCoLdS. With 13 million members TCoJCoLdS is more than ten times as large as all the other LDS groups combined. Tom Haws 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:UNDUE (emphasis added):

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

It sounds like you are saying that because the LDS Church represents almost every individual interested in the subject (the dwarfing majority), and its opinion is monolithic as expressed by the President, it is WP:UNDUE to give a lot of airtime to the multiplicity of other opinions on the subject. Do I understand you right? Tom Haws 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not say that the 1838 account is the only account, but it represents the majority POV. Even the critics focus on the 1838 account more than any other. Something has to go first. Right now the first account presented is the composite "What Smith said he saw", which might be considered WP:OR. We have to present the 'what' of the FV, I think we should use excerpts from the account that the vast majority of believers believe. As long as we clearly state that this is what we're doing and also present the other accounts I don't see a problem, but I've been trying to sell this idea for several months now with no success. Obviously I'm out of sync. I really don't understand why, I wish someone would explain it in a way that I can understand so I can give up on this obviously wrong idea and move on. 74s181 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel for you and I am going to try. Please keep in mind that at the same time I am trying to understand where I am wrong. I do see that the 1838 version might be considered the most complete. However (and the following violates WP:NOR, so take it as mainly a POV disclosure) because true mystical experiences transcend human language and description, they can seem quite fluid. And the later Smith had good reasons--reputation, organization, position, to name just a few--to describe or frame his experience the way he did in 1838. That doesn't make it "false" or "true" or "best" or "worst". It just makes it human and gives it setting. And its use by the LDS Church is also human and has setting. Tom Haws 15:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just been catching up on this thread; please forgive me if I inappropriately review something. First, when we are talking about beliefs, it is appropriate to cover the beliefs as taught by the Latter Day Saint movement at large and, when it comes to Mormonism, the LDS is the big dog on the block. It is not ten times larger, it is 52 times larger than any other identified group within the movement. This is quibbling that is unnecessary, but it can not be forgotten. We do not even begin to attempt to identify what individual Mormons believe and don't believe. First, it is an impossible task, and two, the article woudl quickly lose its value.

I agree with 74 that it makes sense to focus on the 1838 version; it is the most complete and Joseph Smith intended it to be a full explanation of this vision. Good man Haws, I am not really sure I understand the applicability of what you wrote above. I would agree with it in the context of words of man having limits, but I don't really know what to do with it in the regards to the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"52 times larger" is relevant. Therefore using WP:NPOV, I suppose the intro might go something like, "The First Vision was, according to the LDS Church (ref Pres. Hinckley), a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ that Joseph Smith experienced at the age of 14 and that ended the Great Apostasy, began the Latter Day Saint movement, and laid the foundation for LDS Church theology and authority. Most historians, including adherents of the LDS Church and other Latter Day Saint movement branches as well as those outside the movement, view the setting, content, and effect of the theophany in more complex, less epic terms." Tom Haws 17:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My point on the size of the church was to correct 74's statement of being 10 times larger. The point is not to belittle other groups within the movement, but to clearly differentiate the differences in sizes. Again, as I said above this is quibbling and is unnessary.

Back to the point, I am not sure what you are trying to say. As I read your statement it sounds like you are proposing that the prophet of the LDS church states one things, but the rest of the membership have a more complex, varied, view of the First Vision. More importantly, the members feel that the event was not that significant (not epic). Is this an accurate understanding of your proposal? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. It's not good for me to imply offensive notions. But I do think that 74's and your WP:UNDUE concerns can be properly address by referring carefully to WP:NPOV. I'd like to focus on the text, so I'm opening a new section. Tom Haws 18:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didn't say that TCoJCoLdS is ten times as large, I said "TCoJCoLdS is more than ten times as large as all the other LDS groups combined...", I believe this is accurate, as is the statement "52 times larger than any other identified group within the movement." I suppose it is a matter of personal opinion as to which statement has the most impact, but either way TCoJCoLdS is definitely the St. Bernard among Chihuahuas, their POV about the FV is not the only POV but it is the majority POV so I think the article should lead with it. 74s181 22:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Intro

Note to all: Please edit the intro below or copy and rewrite. Either way is fine. Tom Haws 18:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently proposed version for editing

Please keep the current working version at the top of this section.

In the LDS Church, the First Vision was a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ that Joseph Smith experienced at the age of fourteen and that ended the Great Apostasy, began the Latter Day Saint movement, and laid the foundation for LDS Church theology and authority. In the Community of Christ, the vision is called the grove experience and was [insert CofC interpretation here]].

Versions proposed

In the LDS Church, the First Vision was a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ that Joseph Smith experienced at the age of fourteen and that ended the Great Apostasy, began the Latter Day Saint movement, and laid the foundation for LDS Church theology and authority. Most historians, including adherents of the LDS Church and other Latter Day Saint movement branches as well as those outside the movement, view the setting, content, and effect of the theophany in more complex terms. In the Community of Christ, the vision is called the grove experience and was [insert CofC interpretation here]]. For many traditional Christians, the LDS Church interpretation is [insert citation here]. Tom Haws 18:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope in my first proposal here I have done a better job at following WP:UNDUE and keeping a sympathetic tone. Tom Haws 18:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I eliminated the first sentence because it's vague and the second because it is both unknowable and unnecessary. Who cares what "traditional Christians" (an undefined term) think about the First Vision?--John Foxe 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I really like the article the way it stands!  :-) Tom Haws 23:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be one that is not content with the article for the simple fact that the first paragraph is unrecognizable to LDS as a description of the First Vision. This is too important an article for it to be ruled by a minority opinion. I will put back the language that Haws had proposed above because that is anything but vague; it is the desciption that LDS recognize and know as the First Vision. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I meant I objected to the third and fourth sentences, the first and second that I deleted.--John Foxe 15:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Another proposal

Here's another proposal, sorry if I'm not properly following the protocol. I would have preferred to reach a consensus on an outline before talking about rewriting the lead, I think the high level outline should be implicit in the lead. 74s181 23:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The First Vision (also called the grove experience) was an event of great significance to most denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by far the largest denomination within the movement, teaches that the First Vision was an appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ (or theophany) experienced by Joseph Smith, Jr. at the age of fourteen. This event is said to have occurred during the early 1820s in a wooded area (now called the Sacred Grove) near Smith's boyhood home in western New York.

Most denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement teach that the First Vision was an actual event that marked the beginning of the movement and laid the foundation for the restoration of the primitive Christian church, doctrines and authority lost during the Great Apostasy. However, some groups differ in regard to the significance and details of the First Vision.

Many outside of the Latter Day Saint movement teach that the First Vision was either an exageration or a complete fabrication by Joseph Smith, Jr., citing evidence such as contradiction with traditional Christian doctrines, differences between the various accounts, statements by Smith's contemporaries, lack of corroboration, and concerns about Smith's character and motives. Some evangelical Christian groups teach that Smith recorded an actual experience but was deceived by Satan and did not see God or Jesus Christ.

(End of proposal) 74s181 23:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I used 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' because it is by far the largest and most vocal group. 74s181 23:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• I used 'teaches' rather than 'believes' because what the church teaches is a citable, undisputed fact, whereas what people believe is an opinion that could be different depending upon who you cite. 74s181 23:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• I left out the second paragraph of the current lead because I think it gets into too much specific detail for the lead. 74s181 23:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• I explained why 'Most denominations' consider the FV an important event in a very general way without providing specific examples of doctrines, etc., and without further identification of individual denominations. This would be done within the body of the article. I noted that the various denominations don't agree on everything without going into detail. 74s181 23:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• I listed the most common objections without providing detailed examples or identifying a particular group because many of these objections could be voiced by Christians, Hindus, Athiests, etc., but I associated the 'Smith was deceived by Satan' POV with evangelical Christian groups as it is more specific to them. I'm not committed to the order of the objections, or the particular wording, but I reject the notion that the only objections that can be presented are those based on 'historicity', or that objections to a belief that are based on a different belief are inappropriate on WP. 74s181 02:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not clear about "was an event" vs "is an event" in the first sentence, the FV 'was' an event in the past, but it 'is' significant. 74s181 02:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note the overall structure, 1st paragraph asserts undisputed facts, second paragraph summarizes what believers believe, third paragraph summarizes what non-believers believe. I think this is should be the high level outline for the article. 74s181 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, all of these general types of criticism need to be substantiated by citations from WP:RS in the body of the article. 74s181 23:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What you are proposing is what I have been fighting for months: the attempt to neutralize historical evidence for the falsity of the First Vision by turning it into "criticism."--John Foxe 11:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that we have been going around and around on this for months, and I suspect you'll probably ignore my long-winded response. But I don't know what else to do, you seem to be unable or unwilling to understand WP:NPOV, all I can do is try once again to explain. 74s181 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

'Neutralize' is exactly what I'm trying to do, it is absolutely the crux of the biscuit. For example, I know that you believe the "...falsity of the First Vision..." is a fact. But this is not an undisputed fact. Rather, it is a conclusion or a point of view stated by certain people, based on their interpretation of certain facts. About 14 million other people have a different POV, we believe that the FV happened. According to the rules of Wikipedia, specifically, WP:NPOV, the article cannot draw or lead the reader to a conclusion. Both POVs must be presented in a neutral way, OIOW, 'neutralized':

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.

This is not a 'Mormon smokescreen', it is THE fundamental Wikipedia policy, it is THE fundamental Wikimedia policy.[4]. Ultimately, the only facts that can be presented on WP are undisputed facts, it isn't about compromise, "I'll let you say such and such if you'll let me say so and so". The only things subject to negotation and compromise are structure and organization, and even that is subject to WP policy. 74s181 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So, back to your statement about "...the falsity of the First Vision..." This is a disputed fact, but it can become an undisputed fact if we present it according to WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation - "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." For example: 74s181 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

X, Y, Z prove that the First Vision did not happen.

Is a disputed fact, a POV assertion. But if we restate it as:

Expert so and so says X, Y, Z proves that the First Vision did not happen.

Then we have converted it to an undisputed fact. 74s181 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You see, if expert so and so really said such and such, and it is in a reliable source that anyone can confirm, then no one can dispute it, can they? Although I may not agree with what the expert said, I have to reluctantly agree with the FACT that expert so and so really said such and such. This cuts both ways, JF, YOU must also be able to reluctantly agree with the assertions made by believers, that is, that expert so and so said such and such, even though you don't agree that 'such and such' is TRUTH (with a capital 'T'...) This is the essence of WP:NPOV, it is what I and others have been trying to explain. 74s181 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that there really aren't many examples of 'X, Y, Z prove that the First Vision did not happen', but there are many examples of 'X, Y, Z' without an explicitly stated conclusion. Or, in other words, an organization of undisputed facts that radiates an implied stance or leads the reader to a conclusion. This is a more subtle way of presenting a particular POV, but it is still non-neutral according to WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone, and must also be 'neutralized'. IMHO, the only way this can be happened is if the implicit conclusion is specifically stated and the POV is attributed to an expert as in the example above. 74s181 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Now back to your comment on 'criticism'. I thought that the whole point of our recent discussions about 'reaction' / 'reception' has been how to do this without using the word 'critic' or 'criticism'. I thought we were on track, then people started talking about rewritting the lead. Ok. My biggest concern with the lead and with the article as a whole has been that it doesn't explicitly address different POV. So, I proposed a new lead that addresses the idea of different POV, without using any form of the words 'critic' or 'apologist'. 74s181 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line, the problem is not and has never been that you, John Foxe, are the only non-Mormon editor on this article, a lone voice crying in the wilderness. The problem is and has always been that you are unable or unwilling to understand and comply with WP:NPOV, a fundamental Wikipedia principle, possibly THE MOST fundamental principle. 74s181 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Has anything changed? 74s181 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis. The article as it stands today is a far better example of WP:NPOV than most articles about Mormonism on Wikipedia—in part because I'm here providing a non-Mormon viewpoint. What you'd like to do is make the tales of Joseph Smith and the theology of the LDS Church equal to historical fact by calling historical evidence "criticism." That's not WP:NPOV; that's dishonesty.--John Foxe 19:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't an analysis, it is Wikipedia policy that is "...absolute and non-negotiable." 74s181 22:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in some ways this article is better because you, John Foxe, are here to keep us honest. I disagree that this article is a "...far better example of WP:NPOV than most..." John Foxe, In My Humble Opinion you are unable or unwilling to understand and comply with WP:NPOV. 74s181 22:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer, nothing has changed. John Foxe, you have simply turned up the Eddie Haskell knob for a few weeks, but now we're almost back to business as usual. 74s181 22:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, Humpty Dumpty says,"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." That's the way you treat Wiki rules, Les. And your use of Wiki rules is a larger metaphor for how Mormonism works. Because the Church can't argue truth, it has to ground its authority on (ultimately unenforceable) man-made rules.--John Foxe 12:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, you should look into a mirror and recite the Humpty Dumpty quote. Then you'll feel better about your "I will oppose any attempt to compare Mormonism and Christianity" statement. BTW, your comment on 'man-made rules' is ironic since this article is about the First Vision. 74s181 13:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm, you two might probably let others talk about this for a while. What say you? Tom Haws 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Better check on Les though; I'm afraid he'll go into Wiki-withdrawal if he can't post here.--John Foxe 17:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What would be the point? We've had a fairly long cooling off period, almost a month, but no real change. 74s181 02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Either I'm wrong, or John Foxe is wrong, or we're both wrong. I tried for mediation, JF refused. I requested arbitration but I didn't frame my complaint very well so the arbitrators interpreted it as a content dispute and said no. So here we go again. 74s181 03:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why I suggest you might just quit discussing with each other. After all, there are several others present with whom you can discuss. 74, I suggest you refrain responding to JF. And JF conversely. Let the others do it and see what a difference it makes. Tom Haws 23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem not talking to John Foxe, as long as someone else does. 74s181 01:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Move of third lead paragraph

I've moved portions of the third lead paragraph into a more logical place, the section that deals with the beliefs of the LDS Church. I've also put the Mouw quotation in the footnotes on the grounds that Mouw's personal religion has nothing to do with the First Vision. The focus of this article should be Mormon belief and historical challenges to that belief, not comparisons between Mormonism and other religions.--John Foxe 19:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, your attempt to frame the proposed changes as a comparison between Mormonism and other religions is a straw man that just won't stand even the most cursory glance. I haven't been editing because I thought we were trying to reach a consensus, but it appears that the ceasefire is over, so I'll go back to editing now. 74s181 22:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I will oppose any attempt to compare Mormonism and Christianity (or any other religion) here. The First Vision is a Mormon belief and therefore a Mormon difficulty. Neither evangelicals nor Buddhists should make an appearance here. This article should cover in depth the anachronisms of the First Vision stories and its other historical difficulties. It's fine to provide Mormon apologetics in an attempt to weasel out of the problems created by Joseph Smith's varied tales. But historical facts cannot be labeled "criticism." They are not criticism. They are facts, and as such, they have no POV.--John Foxe 13:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, straw man. I'm not attempting to compare anything. My only desire is to present all significant POV, in accordance with WP:NPOV. 74s181 13:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You wrote, "Some evangelical Christian groups teach that Smith recorded an actual experience but was deceived by Satan and did not see God or Jesus Christ." Besides the fact that this sentence has no citation (happy hunting), it compares the beliefs of some unnamed "evangelical Christian groups" to Mormon teaching.--John Foxe 14:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a comparison between those who have one POV about the First Vision, and those who have a completely different POV about the First Vision. Ok, that's a comparison, but I wasn't comparing Christianity and Mormonism, I was "...representing fairly and without bias all significant views..." (WP:NPOV) about the First Vision. I understand that certain of these views are embarassing to you, John Foxe, so I removed the summary statements about them until I find references that meet WP:RS. 74s181 03:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, you insist on the article having no POV, that the historical facts be allowed to speak for themselves. Well, the primary sources say that the First Vision happened, so by your logic the article should summarize the various JS, Jr. accounts and close without further comment. If we left it there the LDS POV would be well served, fortunately for you WP:NPOV states:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.

In case you didn't understand, that means all significant views, not just the ones that you think are appropriate, John Foxe. So the only way you will ultimately keep out the 'JS, Jr. was deceived by Satan' view is if I can't find a WP:RS, or if you can demonstrate that it is a tiny minority view. 74s181 03:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the last paragraph that not only stated that non-Mormons don't believe in the First Vision, but explained why they don't. Identifying the reasons people doubt that veracity of the FV is essential to maintaining a POV balance in the lead. John, you might think that is obvious, but there are, in fact, various events in LDS history that non-Mormons actually believe. The FV isn't one of them. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 13:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to tighten up the sentence a bit. For instance, "non-Mormons" is a perfectly good term.--John Foxe 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have tweaked the ending. While it is true that some Mormons question the details of the various accounts, it is probably not true that they question the trustworthiness and motives of Joseph Smith. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I try to resist stating what individuals believe and stick to official positions when it comes to religion. I am not familiar with one single group/church/congregation in the world that has individual members with uniform beliefs or thoughts. Every group has members that believe a wide range of things. I think it is best to just state what is taught by the respective church; otherwise it is necessary to state the obvious, which is not a good sign (My dad always said that stating the obvious is the sign of a weak mind). Would you feel comfortable taking the individual out of it and just stating the official position? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cogden wrote most of this article, and on his user page, he takes pride in his Mormonism. A Mormon acquaintance once reminded me of a salient aspect of the LDS Church: that it's more interested in "orthopraxy" than in orthodoxy, in what its members do rather than what they believe. Yes, a lot of material embarrassing to the Church has been uncovered by say, the Tanners. But I dare say that just as many uncomfortable thoughts have arisen from BYU. One problem with trying to hide the skeptical views of some important practicing Mormons is that it implies that all Mormons believe one thing and all non-Mormons another, and we know that's not true.--John Foxe 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe Reverts Again...

No surprise here, ceasefire is over, I made a change to the lead, John Foxe reverted it. 74s181 13:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Do I need to protect this article, gentlemen? Tom Haws 16:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the edits have been pretty tame. It's just the discussion that probably could stand to be turned over to others for a while. May I suggest that John Foxe and 74 consider not addressing one another on this page for a while (and possibly go out for pizza together :-D )? Tom Haws 16:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, Tom. I think over the months Les and I have grown to understand each other pretty well, and I'd enjoy sharing a pizza with him if we didn't live several time zones apart.--John Foxe 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

:-D Well, as long as you aren't wearing each other out, enjoy. It's just hard to get in a word edgewise sometimes. Tee hee hee. Tom Haws 21:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wearing. But not wearing out. Yes, this particular exchange was fairly tame, I thought I was getting somewhere, but no. I think if John Foxe and I could share a pizza we might be able to come to some kind of understanding, unfortunately, this form of communication has its weaknesses. So now we start again. 74s181 02:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Last night I reworked the lead, trying to please John Foxe. This morning he reverted again. 74s181 13:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe reverted again this morning. 74s181 23:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe reverted again this morning. 74s181 00:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

LDS movement vs. LDS Church

My first problem with the current intro is that the first sentence is not accurate. In the LDS church, the First Vision is all the things mentioned (an event that ended the Great Apostasy, originated the Latter Day Saint movement, and laid a foundation for the theology and authority). But in the other largest denominations, the Prairie Saint contingency, the boyhood theophany doesn't mean the same. Yes, it's important to account for the movement as a whole. But no, we can't treat them all like they are part of the LDS Church. I tried to achieve that in my proposals above, which I will try working on. Tom Haws 23:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I could fix the inaccuracy by changing LDS movement to LDS Church. I suppose that would merely make the WP:NPOV violation more obvious. Tom Haws 23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I took another wack at it, moving the titles (First Vision / grove experience) closer to the beginning. Also, I think it is better to spell out the full name of TCoJCoLdS in the beginning of the article rather than 'LDS Church'. 74s181 00:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have long had problems with the second paragraph, it implies criticisms that belong in the body of the article, not in the lead. I've tried cleaning it up and merging it with the third paragraph. 74s181 00:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The former third paragraph uses the term 'Mormons', I've replaced it with something more generic. 74s181 00:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"How people have responded to the First Vision" section

I didn't want anyone to think that these signficant changes came out of nowhere, so I thought I would recap the discussions that led up to this. 74s181 13:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been a criticism section in the article almost from the beginning. There has been considerable discussion about this, the most recent discussions can be found at:

• Talk:First_Vision/Archive_5#.22Possible_anachronisms_in.22_.3D_.22Criticism_of.22
• Talk:First_Vision/Archive_5#Criticism_exists
• Talk:First_Vision/Archive_5#Critics_and_apologists
• Talk:First_Vision/Archive_5#Discussion
• Talk:First_Vision#A_.22critic.22_debate
• Talk:First_Vision#How_to_arrange_and_where_to_put_the_LMS_non-mention_fact.3F
• Talk:First_Vision#Changes_proposed_7.2F30

I thought we might be getting somewhere when another editor proposed discussion. I made a workspace for us to try out different proposals, but the other editor walked away from the discussion. There was some followup discussion with Tom Haws, who later suggested that I take a break from interacting directly with the 'other' editor. That's fine with me as long as someone does. However, this created a problem. How was I going to obtain consensus on the changes he and I had been discussing? The only answer I could come up with was to Be Bold. 74s181 13:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Update - Right now the 'other' editor is hard at work, gradually undoing my changes. Oh, well, I have to leave for my real job, I've already wasted too much time here. 74s181 13:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Result - By the time JF was finished editing, this part of the article was almost, but not quite identical to the arrangement and wording that existed before I reworked this section. Main differences - the anachronisms section was at the end, instead of immediately following the 1838 account and a small amount of rewording and a change in the order of the specific criticisms prevents me from calling this a revert. However, it also simplifies my task this evening, I had to do little more than restore the deleted section headers, clean up a little redundancy and I was satisfied that the article is still more neutral than it was before I started editing last night. 74s181 02:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, JF reverted again this morning. So I read thru his edit comments and tried a slightly different approach. 74s181 05:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

08:51, 23 August 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (74,917 bytes) (deleted material that is only Mormon glurge and has no citations, not even any proof that JS talked with a Methodist minister in 1820)

Mormon glurge? No citations? There was a short excerpt from the 1838 / JSH / PoGP account, where JS describes his first attempt to share the FV, with a reference. No proof? I didn't assert that the encounter actually happened, I neutralized the excerpt with "...what he said was the first critical reaction to the vision" (emphasis added). 74s181 05:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

09:07, 23 August 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (72,471 bytes) (→Objections to the First Vision - it's not necessary to mention concerns about JS's character; these anachronisms are all factual matters)

JF only wants his particular brand of criticism, I think he's wrong, but in an effort to satisfy him I removed mention of all types of criticism other than 'anachronisms', and left JF's "Possible anachronisms in accounts of the First Vision" title when I restored the deleted intro this time. 74s181 05:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

JF reverted again, even after I removed the material he said he objected to. 74s181 00:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

09:50, 24 August 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (73,963 bytes) (character is interesting but cannot be proven one way or the other-let's stick to the historical record)

Wikipedia articles are not supposed to 'prove' anything, they are supposed to present all significant POV in a neutral manner. 74s181 00:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

09:52, 24 August 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (72,781 bytes) (→How people have responded to the First Vision -removed section because undocumented)

Everything in the introduction to the 'How people responded' section is documented, either in the introduction, or in the discussions that immediately follow. 74s181 00:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

09:54, 24 August 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (70,839 bytes) (→Possible anachronisms in accounts of the First Vision - section deleted because it claims anachronisms are criticisms rather than historical evidence)

Yesterday the complaint was that I mentioned that there were criticisms of JS, Jr's character. I removed that statement. Today, JF objects because I used the word 'criticism', so this time I took it out. 74s181 00:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the point?

...of John Foxe and I not talking to each other? That is, what is this supposed to accomplish, how is this supposed to make the article better, how is this supposed to make either or both of us into better editors? 74s181 13:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I may be completely wrong. But perhaps if the pace of the two of you is such that you outrun other editors in your talk and edits, you may be too much engaged in the article. If you each, or even one of you, could perhaps reduce the frequency of your engagement and wait and see what happens in a week or a month, or perhaps lobby other editors to pinch hit for you, it may change the dynamic of the affair. It's up to you what you do. But do something different, please. Take the long view. Do you really each want to sustain this level of engagement for as long as Wikipedia exists? Tom Haws 23:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I hope to sustain it until John Foxe gets it, or until the powers that be realize that John Foxe is unable or unwilling to edit in accordance with WP:NPOV, and take some kind of action. Or, until they tell me that I'm wrong and JF is right. Or, maybe we're both wrong and both of us should be blocked from editing this article. 74s181 01:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe has driven many editors away from this article. For today, I'm still here. Are you saying I should also leave? It is true that in the last four months I have focused almost exclusively on this article, I suspect you and maybe others see that as a danger signal, but I'm not trying to push a particular POV, or force the article into any particular mold other than the mold of a good Wikipedia article. My only interest is that the article comply with Wikipedia policies, specifically, WP:NPOV. I know that there are significant criticisms of the First Vision, I have no desire to suppress them. I simply want them to be presented as what they are, that is, critical conclusions by specific groups, based on their interpretation of specific facts.

I'm not married to a particular organization or format. While edit waring with JF, I would fix a problem, JF would revert, I would try another approach, JF would revert, etc., etc. I have at times spent many hours trying find a way to fix a particular problem that would satisfy WP policies and John Foxe. Of course, John Foxe has grown more 'foxey' (his own label for his behavior) and now he incrementally reverts. When finally boxed into a corner with evidence that his 'facts' are not quite the 'TRUTH' he thought, JF will delete a particular statement rather than allow it to be 'neutralized' as described in WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. 74s181 01:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is probably more than you wanted to hear. I still want to get some editing done this evening so JF will have something to revert tommorow morning. 74s181 01:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

More factual accuracy questioning

Is this sentence factual? Tom Haws 23:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"...most teach that the vision ended the Great Apostasy, inaugurated the Latter Day Saint movement, and laid a foundation for the theology and authority of Mormon churches."

As it stands, it conflicts in meaning with the paragraph that follows it. The paragraph that follows it says essentially that the modern LDS import of the FV developed decades after the death of Smith. Why did the scope have to be expanded from LDS Church to LDS movement churches? Please teach me something about this. Tom Haws 23:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict in meaning

"...most teach..." present tense, they teach today. This is a fact, I don't think even JF would dispute this, he has provided multiple quotes from Gordon B. Hinckley which illustrate this. 74s181 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"...was not emphasized..." past tense, wasn't emphasized at that time, this doesn't contradict the earlier statement which says it is taught today. 74s181 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of this paragraph exists to introduce the 'JS, Jr. made it up' POV, at least, I am pretty sure that is why JF insists that it remain in the lead. 74s181 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The criticism goes something like this, please excuse my attitude as I try to explain this particular bit of nonsense. 74s181 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If JS, Jr. really saw God and Jesus Christ in 1820, why didn't he tell anyone about it? He didn't even tell his own mother! When he organized the church in 1830, why didn't he tell anyone then? Why did he wait until 1832 to write anything about it all, and why didn't he mention that both God and Jesus Christ appeared until 1838? Hey, he was in a pretty tight spot around that time, some of his followers were questioning him, saying that he was a no longer a prophet. So, maybe he said to himself, "What am I going to do, hey, here's this story I made up and wrote in my journal six years ago, but you know, it's not very impressive, so I'll add some stuff to it, yeah, that right, I'll tell everyone I saw both God and Jesus Christ, right, I'll make up a whole new doctrine, I'll say I learned about it 18 years ago but I'm only just now teaching it, that's sure to convince everyone that I'm still a prophet!".

Yeah, that'd work. The problem with this argument is that we don't know JS, Jr. didn't tell anyone about the FV, all we know is that there is very little evidence that he did, while there is much evidence of the other doctrines he taught. Of course, it's kind of hard to sweep a whole book under the rug. 74s181 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

However, it's a significant POV, it belongs in the article. I just think that it is a detail that belongs elsewhere in the article, not in the lead, and I think it that the POV needs to be explicitly stated and attributed to some expert who has interpreted these facts in this particular way. 74s181 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Tell me if I understand you correctly. You feel that the main fact about the First Vision is that "in the LDS Church it is an appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ to 14-year-old Joseph Smith that ended the Great Apostasy and laid the foundation for the theology and authority of the church." You feel that this is the main view, the sympathetic view, and that all other views are criticisms. Have I stated your position correctly? Tom Haws 19:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The question is, 'what' is the FV? It's an event, something that happened, or it's a hoax. More specifically, TCoJCoLdS has canonized the 1838 / JSH / PoGP account which says God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to JS, Jr. in 1820 when he was 14 years old. TCoC, the next largest denomination doesn't say any particular account is the account. However, to the best of my knowledge all denominations agree that the FV was the 'first' vision, etc. 74s181 00:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that this is the 'main' view among believers. There are some who believe JS, Jr had a vision inspired by God but don't accept the 1838 / JSH / PoGP account, I see that as a different but sympathetic view, not a critical view. The critical view is that JS, Jr. made it up and nothing happened, or that JS, Jr. was deceived by Satan. And then there is the vast population of the world that knows little or nothing about the FV and therefore, doesn't really have an opinion. 74s181 00:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Then let me try again. You believe that the consensus of interested parties is that the First Vision is an event, though interpretations may vary. A minority of critics say it was fabricated. Did I understand you right that time? Tom Haws 18:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say critics who know something about the FV are the minority view compared to LDS, but among critics, 'fabricated' is probably the majority. Let me try to break it down hierarchically. 74s181 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Vast majority - most of the planet, they know little or nothing about the FV, and therefore, don't have an informed opinion.

• Non-Christians - don't distinguish between the First Vision, the Immaculate conception, or the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
• Most non-LDS Christians - if you questioned them about the FV either have never heard of the FV, or wouldn't be able to tell you anything about it, but if you explained the details of the FV to them would probably reject it. 74s181 12:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• 'Most' followers of the Latter Day Saint movement - believe that JS, Jr. really had an experience in the woods near his home, in or around 1820. 74s181 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• TCoJCoLdS, largest denomination, 10x all others combined - teaches the 1838 / JSH / PoGP account which says God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared in 1820, as scripture. 74s181 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Community of Christ, second largest denomination, around 250,000 members I think - teaches that JS, Jr. had the experience, it is foundational, but says that there is no 'official' account, doesn't take a stand on whether there was one personage, two personages, or only angels, or if there was no physical manifestation at all, just a 'vision'. 74s181 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Church of Christ (Temple Lot) - 10,000 or so members, haven't canonized the 1838 / JSH account but their website says that they teach the essential details from it, 1820, God the Father and Jesus Christ, etc. 74s181 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonites) - 10-15,000 members, not sure of their position but couldn't find anything about the FV on their website. 74s181 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Restorationist branches, those who left the Community of Christ, loose organization, about 10-15,000 members I think, I haven't found anything that says what they believe about the FV, they are more concerned about the doctrinal issues that led them to leave CofC. 74s181 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• FLDS - maybe 10,000? Haven't seen certain about their doctrine, but given their general self description I suspect they believe in the FV.

• Non-believers, sometimes characterized as 'anti-mormons', people who know something about the FV and reject it. 74s181 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Some believe that JS, Jr. made it all up for personal gain, don't know what proportion. 74s181 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Some believe that JS, Jr. may have had some kind of personal spiritual experience but exaggerated it over time, perhaps deceiving himself. 74s181 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Some evangelicals believe that JS, Jr. saw a vision but it was actually Satan masquerading as God, i.e., JS, Jr. was deceived by Satan. I don't know how many believe this, I have heard people say this but had forgotten about it until John Foxe reminded me a couple of months ago. 74s181 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is my opinion, based on the facts as I understand them, subject to change if someone presents evidence to the contrary. Does this help? 74s181 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)