Talk:Joseph Smith

Foxe's problem with the First Vision paragraph

Adjwilley believes he has created with the following paragraph a compromise between Mormon and non-Mormon views of the First Vision. I don't believe that to be the case.

During the 1830s Smith wrote that as a youth he had become concerned for the welfare of his soul and was confused by competing religious denominations.[18] Probably around 1820[19] Smith went to a wooded area to pray[20] and later said that in response to his prayer he had a vision in which God appeared, told him his sins were forgiven, and that all contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel."[21] Smith said he told a preacher about the experience,[22] who he said dismissed the vision with contempt, further distancing Smith from organized religion.[23] Though his "First Vision" would be seen by later generations as Mormonism's founding event, Smith probably understood it as a personal conversion, and the story was unknown to most early believers.[24]

During the 1830s, Smith wrote or dictated many things about the First Vision, many of them contradictory. He said that he had experienced the First Vision more than a decade earlier, but there is no evidence that he told anyone, including his family members, about it. In some versions of the story he said he was concerned about his sins; in most versions, he did not. In the first recounting of the story (1832), in his own handwriting, he said he already knew the churches were corrupt before he had the vision. There is no evidence beyond Smith's testimony for the date (1820), the preacher, or the statement that their interaction distanced him from organized religion. There is no external evidence that Smith had any serious interest in religion during this period, although there's plenty of evidence of his interest in folk magic and treasure hunting. It's possible to say that Bushman or Vogel believe that Smith probably understood the First Vision to be a personal conversion experience, but it's not possible to say it on our own hook because we can't know someone else's mind. (Neither can Bushman or Vogel, but they're authorities and so the notion can be attributed to them.)

A prudent course would be to shorten the paragraph to the following:

During the 1830s, Smith said that in about 1820, he too had had a vision of God while praying in the woods. Although this experience was virtually unknown to early believers, it would be viewed by succeeding generations of Mormons as the First Vision, the founding event of the faith.

That statement is non-controversial and easily documented, and it would not preclude the addition of other information about changes in Mormon theology that followed after Smith publicized the Vision near the end of his life.--John Foxe (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Foxe believes that there has to be either a 'Mormon or non-Mormon' view of the First Vision is problematic. This is Wikipedia, based on secondary sources - it is not meant to be the Deseret News or the Billy Graham Preachathon. In addition, it is an article that is about Joseph Smith and not about Mormonism. Whether Smith changed his story ten times isn't the point - a neutral editor isn't supposed to care less. None of this should be written from the standpoint of it being historical truth anyway - merely reporting what secondary sources have said about the subject, and secondly carefully utilizing primary sources if they are clear about what the subject himself said happened to him. I personally assume that all religious phenomenon has been created by the author, therefore it doesn't matter to me how many times any of it has been changed - it is only 'real' to the storyteller and setting it out as historical truth should not be the job of the editor. That would go for any person of religious importance, including Smith. But please let's move on from this. Adjwilley, can't the section be whittled down even further so that it is ambiguous enough to please both extremes, if that is even necessary? A Sniper (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

@John Foxe: You've made all those arguments before, and they've already been answered. Most of them don't even apply to the paragraph I've written, and are based on your own original research instead of reliable sources. If you feel it's necessary, I can again refute your arguments one by one, but I feel that would be a waste of time and space. The current paragraph reflects reliable sources, and if you'd like to change it, I'd ask you to show some reliable sources that support your changes, or show that my version doesn't adequately represent the many sources it's based on. By the way, I'd be very interested to see a source that argues your point of view, because so far I haven't.

@A Sniper: I've been trying to compromise with John Foxe for the past few weeks, with little success. I've been debating whether or not I should just give up and let him have his way, but I haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet. Frankly I don't want to reward his bad behavior. I don't want to let original research, POV, and edit warring triumph over reliable sources, logic, and Wikipedia policy. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A short history of the First Vision's treatment in this article

Being a fairly new editor at an article with a very long history, I took some time today to read up on some old versions of the article and talk page discussions related to the treatment of the First Vision. I thought others might appreciate my findings, so I figured I'd publish them here for anyone interested in seeing how the First Vision treatment has changed over time. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

In July 2008 shortly before John Foxe made his first edit at the Joseph Smith article, the First Vision got 3 paragraphs in the Early Life section that read:

Smith reported that, in 1820 at the age of 14, he experienced a theophany, an appearance of God to man, or a divine disclosure, most commonly referred to by Latter Day Saints as the First Vision. Smith recorded several accounts of the vision later in life.[5] The version which is most well-known and read was published in 1838.[6]

Smith was concerned as to the correct church to join, and went to a grove of trees to pray. There he had a vision in which he saw God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, appear to him as two separate, glorious, resurrected beings . They told him that none of the churches established at the time were correct, and that he should join none of them.[7]

Soon after, Smith reported his vision to a local minister, who pronounced it "of the devil," because the minister believed "there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and there would never be any more of them". Smith recounted that he was soon the object of much persecution and reviling in his neighborhood, for maintaining that he had seen a vision.[8]

By April 2009 the paragraphs had been shortened significantly, but now had their own subsection in the Early Life section, and pretty heavy footnotes.

As he later recorded the experience, Smith said that as a fourteen-year-old in 1820 he had received a theophany, an appearance of God to man, an event that Latter Day Saints commonly call the First Vision.

Smith said that he had been concerned about what religious denomination to join and prayed in a nearby woods (now called the Sacred Grove). There he had a vision in which he saw God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, as two separate, glorious,resurrected beings of flesh and bone. They told him that no contemporary church was correct in its teachings and that he should join none of them.

Smith recorded several different accounts of this experience,[3] and the version of the First Vision later canonized by the LDS Church was not publicly revealed until 1842.[4]

In June 2009, during an extended talk page discussion on seer stones and treasure hunting, John Foxe "moved" the First Vision paragraphs later in the article to the 1827–1830 section on "Organizing the Church." (diff) Oddly, during this "move" the three paragraphs became one, and some material disappeared.

The single paragraph read:

After founding the church, Smith began to publicize an experience he said he had had as a fourteen-year-old in 1820, when he received a theophany, an appearance of God to man, an event that more recent Latter Day Saints have called the First Vision. [26] Smith recorded several different accounts of this experience,[27] and the version of the First Vision later canonized by the LDS Church was not publicly revealed until 1842 and, although the experience was to gain immense theological importance in Latter Day Saint churches, "most early converts probably never heard about the 1820 vision."[28](See First Vision.)

On October 29, 2009 a new user, User:Wmgcf, noticed that the Early Years section only talked about treasure hunting, and so he tried to replace that with FV material, starting a revert war with several editors (including A Sniper, John Foxe, and Hi540). After being warned on his talk page by A Sniper and Duke53, he began a talk page discussion ([1], [2]) that resulted in COgden adding the following statement to the Early Life section:

According to Smith, he had his First Vision around 1820, in which he said that he saw and heard the voice of Jesus. Although stories of this vision were unknown to Smith's early followers until the 1840s, they would later take on theological significance within the Latter Day Saint movement.

which John Foxe revised to read:

Many years later Smith said he had experienced a theophany around 1820, a vision in which he said he saw and heard the voice of Jesus. Although this experience at best received only limited circulation until the 1840s, Smith's accounts of what came to be called the First Vision later acquired important theological significance within the Latter Day Saint movement.

shortly after User:Wmgcf retired from Wikipedia.

In December 2009, the First Vision was split between the Early Life and Establishing a Church sections, and read,

Many years later Smith said he had experienced a theophany around 1820, a vision in which he said he saw and heard the voice of Jesus. Although this experience at best received only limited circulation until the 1840s, Smith's accounts of what came to be called the First Vision later acquired important theological significance within the Latter Day Saint movement.[5]

...

After founding the church, Smith began to publicize an experience he said he had had as a fourteen-year-old in 1820, when he received a theophany, an event more recent Latter Day Saints have called the First Vision.[38] Smith recorded several different accounts of this experience,[39] but the version of the First Vision later canonized by the LDS Church was not publicly revealed until 1842. Although the experience acquired immense theological importance in Latter Day Saint belief, "most early converts probably never heard about the 1820 vision."[40]

On Dec 5, 2009, during a flurry of edits, COgden removed the second paragraph, calling it redundant and anachronous. (Probably redundant because it was briefly mentioned earlier, and anachronous because it was incorrectly placed in the "1827–1830" section) This edit took with it most of the citations and references on the First Vision, and probably went unnoticed by other editors because there was no discussion of this change on the talk page.

By Dec 10th, 2009, the only mention of the First Vision in the entire article read:

Smith, too, said that about 1820 he had a vision (his First Vision) in which God told him his sins were forgiven,[9] and according to later accounts, that all churches were false.[10] Though unknown to early Latter Day Saints, the vision story would later acquire great theological importance within the Latter Day Saint movement.[11]

On Dec 21, 2011 the article had a grand total of two sentences on the First Vision: one in Early Life, one in Legacy.

Smith later said that he had his own first vision in 1820, in which God told him his sins were forgiven[14] and that all the current churches were false.

...

Of all Smith's visions, Saints gradually came to regard his First Vision as the most important[431] because it inaugurated his prophetic calling and character.[432]

I noticed this problem and added material heavily sourced to Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, and Vogel. John Foxe immediately reverted, beginning a talk page discussion that has been going in circles for over a month now. The paragraph currently reads:

During the 1830s Smith wrote that as a youth he had become concerned for the welfare of his soul and was confused by competing religious denominations.[18] Probably around 1820[19] Smith went to a wooded area to pray[20] and later said that in response to his prayer he had a vision in which God appeared, told him his sins were forgiven, and that all contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel."[21] Smith said he told a preacher about the experience,[22] who he said dismissed the vision with contempt, further distancing Smith from organized religion.[23] Though his "First Vision" would be seen by later generations as Mormonism's founding event, Smith probably understood it as a personal conversion, and the story was unknown to most early believers.[24]

This short paragraph is possibly the best sourced in the entire article: each citation tag has an average of four sources in it, and it references at least nine reliable sources. John Foxe, who used to sing praises to "reliable sources", saying they were all on his side, has over the last month, all but abandoned them, preferring his own original research and point of view arguments. During this time I have tried to compromise with him, and have offered significant concessions, but it seems that he won't accept anything short of cropping out most of the sourced material, leaving only the parts that conform to his very unique point of view.

Note to other editors: I probably missed some important details and developments in my short history. Please don't be offended if I left you out; I realize that many editors have played significant roles in the development of the article. Also, if I got some details wrong, please set me straight, and feel free to revise the history above. I hope somebody finds this interesting. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Foxe's problem with the First Vision paragraph (2)

In a paragraph above I discussed the problems with the current paragraph about the First Vision and suggested a two-sentence compromise. Adjwilley has written copiously about the history of the treatment of the First Vision here, but he has conspicuously not addressed my objections.

Let's try again. Here's the current paragraph about the First Vision:

During the 1830s Smith wrote that as a youth he had become concerned for the welfare of his soul and was confused by competing religious denominations.[18] Probably around 1820[19] Smith went to a wooded area to pray[20] and later said that in response to his prayer he had a vision in which God appeared, told him his sins were forgiven, and that all contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel."[21] Smith said he told a preacher about the experience,[22] who he said dismissed the vision with contempt, further distancing Smith from organized religion.[23] Though his "First Vision" would be seen by later generations as Mormonism's founding event, Smith probably understood it as a personal conversion, and the story was unknown to most early believers.[24]

And here are my objections:

During the 1830s, Smith wrote or dictated many things about the First Vision, many of them contradictory. He said that he had experienced the First Vision more than a decade earlier, but there is no evidence that he told anyone, including his family members, about it. In some versions of the story he said he was concerned about his sins; in most versions, he did not. In the first recounting of the story (1832), in his own handwriting, he said he already knew the churches were corrupt before he had the vision. There is no evidence beyond Smith's testimony for the date (1820), the preacher, or the statement that their interaction distanced him from organized religion. There is no external evidence that Smith had any serious interest in religion during this period, although there's plenty of evidence of his interest in folk magic and treasure hunting. It's possible to say that Bushman or Vogel believe that Smith probably understood the First Vision to be a personal conversion experience, but it's not possible to say it on our own hook because we can't know someone else's mind. (Neither can Bushman or Vogel, but they're authorities and so the notion can be attributed to them.)

Here are some WP:RS that support my objections:

"The evidence, however, leaves no doubt that, whatever Joseph's inner feelings, his reputation before he organized his church was not that of an adolescent mystic brooding over visions, but of a likable ne'er-do-well who was notorious for tall tales and who spent his leisure leading a band of idlers in digging for buried treasure." Brodie, 16.

"Joseph's first published autobiographical sketch of 1834, already noted, contained no whisper of an event that, if it had happened, would have been the most soul-shattering experience of his whole youth." Brodie, 24. "If something happened that spring morning in 1820, it passed totally unnoticed in Joseph's home town, and apparently did not even fix itself in the minds of members of his own family." Brodie, 25.

"I suspect that the vision, or at least the claim to a vision, may be traced to 1820-21. I therefore reject the suggestion that Smith invented the vision in the 1830s. However, his subsequent alterations reflect an evolving theology—particularly the addition of the personage of the Father in his 1838 account—and cautions against an uncritical acceptance of even the 1832 account. In fact, one should be cautious, if for no other reason, because Smith himself freely modified his original account." Vogel, 30.

"None, friend or foe, in New York or Pennsylvania remembers either that there was 'great persecution' or even that Joseph claimed to have had a vision. Not even his family remembers it." Palmer, 245.

"According to Joseph Smith, he told the story of the vision immediately after it happened in the early spring of 1820. As a result, he said, he received immediate criticism in the community. There is little if any evidence, however, that by the early 1830's Joseph Smith was telling the story in public. At least if he were telling it, no one seemed to consider it important enough to have recorded it at the time, and no one was criticizing him for it." Allen, 30.

"The emergence of the First Vision is a syncretic approach to deal with past doctrinal inconsistencies on a broad scale. What it attempts to do is, in one giant sweep, gather all of the doctrinal inconsistencies, such as a plurality of Gods, God being an exalted man, the purpose of the Church, and the calling of Joseph Smith, and place it into an earlier time frame." Widner, 105.

Let me be clear that I'm not asking that these alternate views of the First Vision (which differ from each other) be somehow incorporated into the text. I'm arguing only for a couple of sentences, such as those below, that would eliminate the controversy.

During the 1830s, Smith said that in about 1820, he too had had a vision of God while praying in the woods. Although this experience was virtually unknown to early believers, it would be viewed by succeeding generations of Mormons as the First Vision, the founding event of the faith.

--John Foxe (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I trust Adjwilley to write something that is NPOV. The only editor that seems hung up on the 'controversy' is John Foxe. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

@ASniper, Thanks, I do try.

@John Foxe, Thank you for being willing to argue from the sources again. I appreciate the effort you've put into this, and I'll try to be careful in my responses. The short "history" I wrote above was not intended to be a response to anything you've said, but something I researched because I was curious and wrote down because I thought others might find it interesting as well. One thing I noticed in my reading was that historically there has been an "either-or" mentality surrounding the Smith's Vision/religious experience and his treasure seeking activities, as if he couldn't have done both. (I personally think this is a false dichotomy and that Bushman would agree with me.) That said, I will now try to respond to each of your quotations.

"The evidence, however, leaves no doubt that, whatever Joseph's inner feelings, his reputation before he organized his church was not that of an adolescent mystic brooding over visions, but of a likable ne'er-do-well who was notorious for tall tales and who spent his leisure leading a band of idlers in digging for buried treasure." Brodie, 16.

You've quoted this before, but I'll respond again. Having religious experiences and digging for treasure are not mutually exclusive activities. Virtually all the sources agree that Smith had a vision experience of some sort, and then went on with his daily life. Brodie is somewhat of an exception. She seems to view Smith as having been irreligious, and that's something many have criticized her for, including Vogel. (page viii)

"None, friend or foe, in New York or Pennsylvania remembers either that there was 'great persecution' or even that Joseph claimed to have had a vision. Not even his family remembers it." Palmer, 245.

The paragraph says nothing about "great persecution" or Smith telling his family, so this excerpt doesn't really apply. I think it's generally agreed upon that the "great persecution" was a detail that came from later visions that got projected back to the First Vision, whether intentionally or unintentionally we'll never know. Quinn and Vogel seem to take opposing views on that. The paragraph I wrote says nothing of it.

"Joseph's first published autobiographical sketch of 1834, already noted, contained no whisper of an event that, if it had happened, would have been the most soul-shattering experience of his whole youth." Brodie, 24. "If something happened that spring morning in 1820, it passed totally unnoticed in Joseph's home town, and apparently did not even fix itself in the minds of members of his own family." Brodie, 25.

This quote seems odd because he actually did write it down in 1832...why is she talking about 1834? Perhaps you could explain this for me. Either way, these two quotes don't disprove anything in the paragraph. The paragraph notes that Smith wrote about it in the 1830s and that it was "virtually unknown to early believers". The paragraph also says nothing about him telling members of his own family (who were numbered among the early believers).

The 1832 account was unknown to Brodie; it remained unpublished until 1965.--John Foxe (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was assuming it might have been something like that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"I suspect that the vision, or at least the claim to a vision, may be traced to 1820-21. I therefore reject the suggestion that Smith invented the vision in the 1830s. However, his subsequent alterations reflect an evolving theology—particularly the addition of the personage of the Father in his 1838 account—and cautions against an uncritical acceptance of even the 1832 account. In fact, one should be cautious, if for no other reason, because Smith himself freely modified his original account." Vogel, 30.

I'm surprised you quoted this one, since Vogel openly rejects the view that the vision was made up later. I feel my paragraph complies with this, as I was very cautious not to mention the subsequent alterations, particularly the addition of the personage of the Father. I've made a point not to stick to any account in particular, instead sticking very closely to what the sources say about the experience.

"According to Joseph Smith, he told the story of the vision immediately after it happened in the early spring of 1820. As a result, he said, he received immediate criticism in the community. There is little if any evidence, however, that by the early 1830's Joseph Smith was telling the story in public. At least if he were telling it, no one seemed to consider it important enough to have recorded it at the time, and no one was criticizing him for it." Allen, 30.

Again, my paragraph says nothing of Smith telling the story in public. As for the receiving criticism statement, Quinn and Vogel treat that much more carefully than Allen does, as I have noted above. As for the preacher, that's supported quite solidly by Bushman, Quinn, and Remini, and is not contradicted by Allen.

"The emergence of the First Vision is a syncretic approach to deal with past doctrinal inconsistencies on a broad scale. What it attempts to do is, in one giant sweep, gather all of the doctrinal inconsistencies, such as a plurality of Gods, God being an exalted man, the purpose of the Church, and the calling of Joseph Smith, and place it into an earlier time frame." Widner, 105.

Again, I note that my paragraph says nothing of doctrinal inconsistencies, plurality of Gods, or God having a body. (I simply say he had a vision in which God appeared.) I say nothing about a coming Restoration or Church or Calling, saying instead that Joseph saw the vision as a personal conversion (cited to Bushman, Vogel, Allen, and Remini. I suppose I could add Widner to the citation as well).

As far as I can tell, you still seem to be arguing against the so-called "Mormon POV" without actually addressing what's in the paragraph. I understand that you have a long history of arguing against "Mormon POV," so long, perhaps, that you automatically assume anything not written by you is POV. (To read more about this condition, see m:MPOV.) Because my paragraph actually represents the sources instead of your POV, you seem to have assumed that it must be Mormon POV, setting that up as a straw man and arguing against it without actually acknowledging what the paragraph says.

By the way, Since we're finally arguing sources again, I've got one for you. From the preface of Remini's biography:

"I should make it clear at the outset that I am not a Mormon. As such I faced several problems in writing this book, one of which involved Joseph's visions and revelations, which are crucial to an understanding of him, his Church, and the times in which he lived. After considerable thought I decided to present his religious experiences just as he described them in his writings and let readers decide for themselves to what extent they would give credence to them. I am not out to prove or disprove any of his claims. As a historian I have tried to be as objective as possible in narrating his life and work." (Remini p. x)

Could you please explain why you disagree with Remini's approach?

~Adjwilley (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

When Remini or any of us write for publication under our own names, we can take whatever viewpoint we like on our subject so long as our publishers let us get away with it. Wikipedia, for good and ill, is a different critter.--John Foxe (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I dropped out of here a while ago, thanks to Adjwilley's showing up and taking the long-needed NPOV. It was such a frustrating circular argument that we went through (sorry it took me so long to realize it) and in the end I got the sense the article was being controlled by filibuster. Please, don't throw in the towel, Adjwilley. @JohnFoxe. Thanks for owning up to sockpuppeting (the accusation was as Hi540, I only bring this up because both you and Hi540 are mentioned in the previous section as contributors and so this provides a context for the influencers of the early article). The honorable thing to do is to step away. I don't think you are making many new arguments (Brodie is good, Bushman is okay as long as he is pointing out Joseph's weaknesses...) . I had kind of hoped when I stepped away that you would also, and leave the article to the newer NPOV editors. But having sockpuppeted (I claim guilt there too but only because I didn't know what I was doing with signing in early on), used the talk page as a Mormon-bashing forum, and clearly worked from a polemic POV, you seem to be as ineffective at improving the article as anyone could be. No offense, but as John Lennon wrote, "Let it be." You can take the time you'll save campaigning for 'Anyone-but Mitt' or your current President, the guy who makes Jimmy Carter look like the good old days. You know, being a Canadian I can tell you without reservation that I was anti-Obama before it was cool and not have the teamsters or the SEIU show up at my door to rough me up a bit. Hope I didn't offend too many here. Peace.--Canadiandy talk 06:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a small sidenote, as I don't want to give the wrong impression... as far as I saw, Hi540 didn't play a significant role in the history of the First Vision paragraph(s), but participated more in the magic/hat/stone discussions. That's past now, and I probably shouldn't have mentioned the name in the first place. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Because there is no room in the "early years" section to go into detail about the various shades of opinion on the First vision, the only thing we can reasonably present is what every major writer seems to agree with. This includes: (1) that Smith later claimed to have a theophany in the 1820 time frame, (2) that if such a vision occurred, it passed unnoticed in Palmyra and did not fix itself within the memories of Smith's family, and (3) the story of the vision later took on important theological significance. Is there anything else for which there is a consensus? Why do we need to say more than this in the "early years" section? There is also consensus about the theological impact of the vision story, but that impact is very out of place in the "early years" section, because such a discussion needs some background on Smith's later theological evolution. COGDEN 22:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you about the theological impact not belonging in the Early Life section, and have tried to leave that out. In addition to your three points, I would also say that there is a fairly good consensus on: (1) Some concern about religion; (2) the general content of the vision (the Lord, sins forgiven, and something about church corruption); (3) a distancing from secular religion, which many of the sources present in the context of the preacher's rejection; (4) Most sources agree that Smith saw the vision as a personal conversion, which fits with your 3rd point (in the sense that it didn't become doctrinally significant until later). Would you mind giving a specific opinion on the following paragraph?

During the 1830s Smith wrote that as a youth he had become concerned with religion and that around 1820 he had a vision in which God told him his sins were forgiven, and that contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel." Smith said he told a preacher about the experience, who he said dismissed the vision with contempt, distancing Smith from organized religion. Though his "First Vision" would be seen by later generations as Mormonism's founding event, Smith probably understood it as a personal conversion, and the story was unknown to most early believers.

~Adjwilley (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Though I think there is a consensus that Smith was at some point in his adolescence concerned about religion (enough so that he joined a Methodist class), I don't think there is consensus as to how or if that concern relates to the first vision. I don't think there is any consensus about the content of the visions, because there is no one element that is present in every account of the visions. One of the accounts says that Smith saw angels, for example, and some of them (including the canonized version) do not refer to sins being forgiven. The part about churches (as opposed to the world in general) being corrupt did not appear in his accounts until 1838. As to it being a personal conversion, I don't think there is a consensus for that, either, considering that there is not even a consensus that the vision occurred. As to Smith telling a preacher about the experience, I don't think we can include that without also including some caveats and qualifications, namely that there is no corroboration of that from sources other than Smith, and the main candidate for such a preacher is not known to have been in a place where Smith was during the relevant time period, so that if it happened, it might not have happened soon after the vision in 1820. COGDEN 07:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we may be coming at this from the wrong angle. I agree with you that there is no consensus that the vision occurred, but that was never an issue. There is consensus that Smith said it occurred, that the claim to a vision dated to about 1820, and every biography discusses it in the context of Smith's early life. As for the churches not being corrupt until 1838, I think we're splitting hairs here. The 1832 account says "...the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not (my) commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me..." Though he doesn't say the word "church" it's clearly the same story. That said, I don't think that's an important point, and I personally have never compared the original accounts. I think that doing so goes far beyond the scope of editing Wikipedia. As John Foxe has pointed out so many times, we're supposed to write based on secondary sources, not primary. Though one of Smith's accounts said he saw angels, I've seen no secondary sources arguing that he saw angels instead of the Lord. So far, in the sources I've read, I have seen 100% consensus on that point.

Likewise, with the other points, of course there will be no consensus over whether they actually happened or not, but there is consensus that Smith said they happened. The personal conversion bit comes primarily from unbelieving sources. The preacher bit is one that I'm willing to compromise on and drop entirely when John Foxe decides he's ready to compromise.

That said, I think a big problem with this discussion is the seemingly arbitrary requirement that "the only thing we can reasonably present is what every major writer seems to agree with." Consensus from every major writer is an extremely high standard, one I have not seen in Wikipedia policy, and certainly one that the rest of the article does not meet. Should one subject area have to meet this extraordinarily high standard because a single editor is making a big deal out of it? If so, a person could cut almost anything they want out of this article by arguing a lack of consensus among historians. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You haven't argued that my objections to the current paragraph are incorrect or untrue. You've just argued that secondary sources can be cherry picked in support of your own synthesis. But the secondary sources that I've quoted present a completely different, and equally valid, picture of the event: that Smith was irreligious in his youth; that his contemporaries did not consider him an "adolescent mystic brooding over visions"; that Smith claimed to have discovered the falsity of Christendom through his own Bible study; that there's no mention of a preacher except in Smith's recollections; that Smith's various stories "reflect an evolving theology" that "cautions against an uncritical acceptance of even the 1832 account...because Smith himself freely modified his original account"; that Smith said he received immediate criticism for telling the story, which (so far as is possible to tell) is fictional; and that Smith's telling of the First Vision late in his career was an attempt "to gather all of the doctrinal inconsistencies...and place it into an earlier time frame." Brodie speculates that the First Vision story might have been "sheer invention, created some time after 1830 when the need arose for a magnificent tradition to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money digging." (25) On what grounds can her opinion be excluded from the paragraph?

I agree with COGDEN that there"s no scholarly consensus for anything other than the information in my suggestion (though, of course, there's nothing sacred about its wording).--John Foxe (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's odd that you accuse me of cherry picking when the paragraph represents the views of nine different sources, (including the ones you quoted above). You seem to be the one who is cropping out Bushman, Vogel, Brodie, and Quinn, in favor of Palmer and Allen. Why do you want to cut those out? WP:NPOV states that: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I didn't argue that the sources you quoted were untrue. I just argued that they are already proportionately represented in the paragraph.

Also, I'm not at all satisfied with your response to Remini. "He wrote what his publishers let him get away with" is not any reason why we should ignore his viewpoint. So again, could you please explain why we should ignore Remini (or all the other sources you're trying to cut out for that matter). Here's the quote again.

"I should make it clear at the outset that I am not a Mormon. As such I faced several problems in writing this book, one of which involved Joseph's visions and revelations, which are crucial to an understanding of him, his Church, and the times in which he lived. After considerable thought I decided to present his religious experiences just as he described them in his writings and let readers decide for themselves to what extent they would give credence to them. I am not out to prove or disprove any of his claims. As a historian I have tried to be as objective as possible in narrating his life and work." (Remini p. x)

~Adjwilley (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Adjwilley = 1. Foxe = 0. FAIL.  ;) Best, A Sniper (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You've cherry picked reliable sources to back your personal synthesis of the First Vision story and refused to include other material, also taken from reliable sources, which, as I've demonstrated, presents an entirely different view of the episode. You haven't argued that any of the quotations I've used are unreliable or have been taken out of context. You therefore admit by default that your version of the First Vision story is POV because it only presents one side of the story.

My point about Remini is that he's welcome to take any position he chooses in regard to Joseph Smith. His name's on the book, Bushman's on his, Brodie's on hers, etc. I'm sure all would argue that they were attempting to write in a historically objective fashion.--John Foxe (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read your first paragraph several times now, and the only way it makes sense in my mind is if somebody were saying it to you. Perhaps you should explain yourself better, because so far you seem to be the only one here who's trying to exclude material from reliable sources. Again, your second paragraph gives no reason why we should ignore Remini. Saying that he was attempting to write in a historically objective fashion is no reason to abandon Wikipedia policy. So again: please explain why we should ignore Remini (and perhaps while you're at it, all the other sources you're trying to cut out with your edits). ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

From WP:RS sources I've provided the following information: that Smith was irreligious in his youth; that his contemporaries did not consider him an "adolescent mystic brooding over visions"; that he claimed to have discovered the falsity of Christendom through his own Bible study; that Smith's various stories "reflect an evolving theology" that "cautions against an uncritical acceptance of even the 1832 account...because Smith himself freely modified his original account"; that Smith said he received immediate criticism for telling the First Vision story, which (so far as is possible to tell) is fictional; that Smith's telling of the First Vision late in his career was an attempt "to gather all of the doctrinal inconsistencies...and place it into an earlier time frame," and finally that the whole story may be "sheer invention, created some time after 1830 when the need arose for a magnificent tradition to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money digging." You've not challenged any source or statement, yet the current paragraph about the First Vision reflects none of these ideas.

With apologies to COGDEN, the reason I've advocated a brief mention of the First Vision is that it's not possible to have a longer one. There's no room in the "early years" section to detail every shade of opinion about the First vision that can be found in WP:RS. The only thing we can reasonably present is what every major writer seems to agree on: (1) that Smith later claimed to have a theophany in the 1820 time frame, (2) that if such a vision occurred, it passed unnoticed in Palmyra and did not fix itself within the memories of Smith's family, and (3) the story of the vision later took on important theological significance.--John Foxe (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You've already brought up those arguments before, and I've already painstakingly shown that they are a) already given due weight in the paragraph or b) not actually supported by reliable sources. I'd be happy to outline my arguments again, but it's still your turn. You served me six quotes from reliable sources, and I responded to each one, showing how they were represented in the paragraph, and how the paragraph doesn't contradict them. Then I gave you one quote from a reliable source, asking why it should be ignored, and you've skirted around it three times now. If you want me to continue thoughtfully reading and responding to your comments, I would ask that you do me the same courtesy. So again: please explain why we should ignore Remini (and perhaps while you're at it, all the other sources you're trying to cut out with your edits).

As a side note, please remember to thread your posts. Oddly, failure to thread posts on talk pages is listed as one of the 14 characteristics of tendentious editors. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. Foxe, Adjwilley has already patiently destroyed your argument. Move on. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me just add a brief note about Remini. WP:DUE relates to the presentation of various opposing perspectives in an article, and ensuring that the most prominent perspectives are given the most prominence. Remini's admitted perspective is that of a non-believer. He presented the 1838 story of the first vision after noting his personal disbelief in the veracity of Smith's stories. Remini did not have space to devote more than two pages to the First Vision story: his compromise was to just present the 1838 version uncritically with a note in the preface that he didn't believe it. Writing a Penguin Lives bio of Joseph Smith, he was free to do that. We as Wikipedia writers are not. We have to present all prominent mainstream perspectives, and give the most prominent ones the most prominence. Where we can't do that in the small space we have, we have to present just the consensus facts. COGDEN 07:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

...and Adjwilley is doing this adequately and free of POV. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The point with Remini is that he chose to tell the story, not whether he believed it or not. All the other historians choose to tell the story as well, some more critically than others, but the story is pretty much the same. Please understand, I'm not trying to write that anything actually happened, (as one can see from my liberal use of Smith saids). I'm just trying to present the story as it's told in the sources, and so far, nobody has said why that's wrong. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The statements in the current paragraph represent only cherry picked secondary sources. You've excluded statements that don't reflect your point of view. You haven't answered my objections, just ignored them. For good measure I'll repeat them:

WP:RS sources say that Smith was irreligious in his youth; that his contemporaries did not consider him an "adolescent mystic brooding over visions"; that he claimed to have discovered the falsity of Christendom through his own Bible study; that Smith's various stories "reflect an evolving theology" that "cautions against an uncritical acceptance of even the 1832 account...because Smith himself freely modified his original account"; that Smith said he received immediate criticism for telling the First Vision story, which (so far as is possible to tell) is fictional; that Smith's telling of the First Vision late in his career was an attempt "to gather all of the doctrinal inconsistencies...and place it into an earlier time frame," and finally that the whole story may be "sheer invention, created some time after 1830 when the need arose for a magnificent tradition to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money digging."

You say all the material above is either represented in the current paragraph or is not taken from reliable sources. Where then is an indication that the variations in Smith's stories "reflect an evolving theology" (Vogel) or that the whole story may be "sheer invention, created some time after 1830 when the need arose for a magnificent tradition to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money digging" (Brodie)?--John Foxe (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You've sidestepped the Remini quote again. I will answer your objections once again though, in good faith that you will answer mine.

You have provided one reliable source (Brodie) who says Smith's contemporaries didn't consider him religious. I have provided several reliabe sources (Bushman, Vogel, Quinn, Remini, etc.) who say otherwise. Also, as I have mentioned, Vogel criticizes Brodie for treating Smith as being irreligious. Also, if you feel enough weight is not given to Smith's money digging, I'd refer you to the next four paragraphs in the article.

You say that his contemporaries did not consider him an "adolescent mystic brooding over visions." My paragraph says that "the story was unknown to most early believers." You want more?

You say that he "claimed to have discovered the falsity of Christendom through his own Bible study." You've never provided a secondary source from that. That seems to be your own original research.

You quote Vogel saying that Smith's various stories "reflect an evolving theology" and I agree and say that that material belongs later in the article (pretty sure everybody here agrees on that one).

You quote Vogel saying one should be cautions against an uncritical acceptance of even the 1832 account. I agree 100%, which is why I'm not trying to base this on the primary accounts (as you seem to be doing), but instead base it on the works of several historians who have looked at all the accounts critically and synthesized them.

You say that Smith said he received immediate criticism for telling the First Vision story, which (so far as is possible to tell) is fictional. If you read the sources you'll find that either a) Smith mistook the criticism for the gold plates for the criticism for the First Vision or b) Smith was talking about the Preacher. If you choose a) (the Quinn interpretation) then the criticism belongs a couple paragraphs down. If you choose b) (the Bushman interpretation), you'll find that this is already represented in the paragraph ("who he said dismissed the vision with contempt.") If you're trying to add more than that, you're going onto thinner ice in terms of reliable sources.

You say that Smith's telling of the First Vision late in his career was an attempt "to gather all of the doctrinal inconsistencies...and place it into an earlier time frame" (without providing a source). Again: the doctrinal development does not belong in this first vision paragraph. This tidbit belongs later in the article. We're trying to strip it down to the core story, not explore all the possible interpretations and implications.

You say the whole story may be "sheer invention, created some time after 1830 when the need arose for a magnificent tradition to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money digging." (Sounds like Brodie again, who as you pointed out earlier, didn't even know the 1832 account existed.) I respond: Of course the story may have been sheer invention! That goes without saying. You could say the same thing about Moses's burning bush. What are you suggesting we do? Should we put a disclaimer at the beginning of the article warning the reader that Joseph Smith may have made up his visions? I think not. We should follow the example of reliable sources, giving it its due weight and then moving on. Remini said that Joseph's visions and revelations are "crucial to an understanding of him, his Church, and the times in which he lived." Speaking of Remini, you still haven't given a reason for why we should ignore him, or any of the other historians you're trying to cut out. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don’t think the Remini quotation has any bearing on our discussion here. He’s an authority who can take responsibility for his own work; we can’t.

Brodie says Smith’s contemporaries didn’t consider him religious as a youth. Neither Bushman, Vogel, nor Quinn have contradicted her statement. That Smith was religious is a belief you’ve intuited from their discussions of Smith's First Vision. (Vogel’s remarks concern Smith’s alleged religiosity in the 1830s, not when he was a teenager.) To counter Brodie, you’d need an authority who says flatly that Smith was religiously minded as a youth and/or that his contemporaries considered him religious. Roger I. Anderson, Joseph Smith’s New York Reputation Reexamined (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), 6, emphasizes the accuracy of community testimonies to the Smith family’s treasure hunting and lack of religiosity.

“Instead, the 1832 version says Smith discovered the falsity of Christendom through his own personal Bible studies that began at the age of twelve.” Richard Abanes, One Nation under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2002), 15-16.

You can’t hide the information that the creation of the First Vision story may reflect an evolving theology by putting that information later in the article. If an authority on Mormon theology such as Widmer says that the telling of the First Vision was an attempt to put doctrinal inconsistencies into an earlier time frame, then that information can’t be hushed up by moving it somewhere else in the article. I’m not interested in a standard disclaimer ("Smith said") but in the second part of Brodie's sentence that the First Vision story may have been created “to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money digging.”

Your version avoids mention of Smith seeing angels, as does his 1835 version, or the two “glorious personages” who appear in all the versions beginning in 1840. Why exclude them when all authorities mention them to one degree or another?

Brodie’s summary says “Joseph’s autobiography would indeed lead one to believe that his vision of God the Father and His Son had created a neighborhood sensation….Oddly, however, the Palmyra newspapers, which in later years gave him plenty of unpleasant publicity, took no notice of Joseph’s vision at the time it was supposed to have occurred.” (23)

I agree with Remini that Joseph's visions are "crucial to an understanding of him, his Church, and the times in which he lived." That doesn't mean that the article has to push the POV that those visions actually occurred.

I'm not interested in ignoring Remini or any other authority, but we can’t write another First Vision article here. That's why we need a simple one- or two-sentence mention of the First Vision that all authorities agree on. I've suggested, "During the 1830s, Smith said that in about 1820, he too had had a vision of God while praying in the woods. Although this experience was virtually unknown to early believers, it would be viewed by succeeding generations of Mormons as the First Vision, the founding event of the faith."--John Foxe (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

John, I think you're getting way to caught up in the theological implications, judging by your gradual retreat from reliable biographies about Joseph Smith into various books critical of Mormonism like An Insider's View and One Nation Under Gods. Why can't we simply use the handful of biographies we already have and treat the First Vision as they do?

As for Smith's interest in religion as a youth, for our purposes it doesn't really matter what his contemporaries said they thought. It only matters what secondary reliable sources think. You've pulled Brodie's quote from its context to try to show he wasn't religiously minded, saying that nobody contradicts it. Actually, Bushman, Vogel, Quinn, and Remini all contradict it (Bushman pointing to the aftereffects of the 1817 revival, Vogel saying that around 1817 Smith was beginning to feel his own religious stirrings, and speaking of Smith's bible reading and awareness of his sins, Quinn's publications talking about Joseph attending the camp meetings, and concern for his sins, Remini on Smith wanting to join a church, and I could go on.) I also think it's slightly ironic that you said I need to find a source saying Smith was religiously minded as a youth, and then in your next paragraph quote Abanes saying that Smith's personal bible studies began at the age of 12. Thanks for that ;-)

As I said before, I left out the angels because that's what all the biographies do. Do I need a better reason than that?

One thing I wish you would stop doing is suggesting that I'm trying to push a POV that the visions actually occurred. That is absolutely not what I'm doing. Stating that Smith said he had a vision does not imply the vision occurred any more than stating Smith said he obtained golden plates implies that golden plates existed. I ask that you leave your theological baggage and your assumptions about me and my motives out of the discussion, and instead focus on what the sources say. They all give a brief synopsis of the vision. Why are you opposed to that? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source is a reliable source, and that includes Abanes and Palmer. I try not to use such if more neutral ones are available, but there's no reason not to use a reliable source just because it's critical of Mormonism.

Bushman, Vogel, Remini, and even Abanes are simply reflecting Smith's testimony. There's no evidence, external to Smith, that he was a bit religious during his teens. His Palmyra neighbors have uncomplimentary things to say about Smith's morality, and Rodger I. Anderson's Joseph Smith’s New York Reputation Reexamined (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), another WP:RS, emphasizes the accuracy of those testimonies. Brodie's assessment stands unchallenged unless it can be countered by a secondary source that says Smith was religious in his teens.

Most secondary sources (though not Abanes) may ignore the angels, but even Bushman includes the two shining "personages" (presumably Jesus and God the Father) of the 1838/39 versions and following. On what grounds do you exclude them from your synthetic version of the First Vision?--John Foxe (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Give it up now, Foxe - Adjwilley has won the argument & has won the day. Move on now. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

John, if I might ask you another favor... Would you please stop referring to the paragraph as my "synthetic version" of the First Vision? While the paragraph is definitely a synthesis of Smith's various accounts, it is not my synthesis, and more importantly, it is not original synthesis. It's Bushman's synthesis (which can be found here if anybody wants to check me on that).

You seem to be operating on the assumption that everything Smith said is automatically unreliable. While this is a perfectly valid point of view, I don't think it works for Wikipedia. It's not our job to look at the primary sources and decide who's reliable and who's not. The secondary sources have already done that, and our job is to reflect them. If they take Smith at face value on a particular point, we should probably trust them and do the same—not throw their careful analysis out the door because there's "no evidence, external to Smith." When I get a chance I'd be happy to provide you with more detailed quotes from Bushman, Quinn, Remini, and Vogel, but I've been quite busy recently and I don't have the books with me at the moment.

My reason for excluding the "two personages" is that Bushman mentions them almost as an afterthought to his initial discussion of the Vision as details that came out later, while Vogel strips them out altogether in his effort to get to the "core" of the story. For the purposes of this paragraph, I think it would be best not to try to discuss how many personages there were, though I'm not opposed to the idea. As it stands, the paragraph is slightly ambiguous as to how many personages there were, saying only "God" which could mean the Father, the Son, or perhaps both. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I should have been more careful to make clear that I believed your synthesis to be based on Bushman's synthesis. Whenever there's no evidence for a statement other than Smith's testimony, that fact should be acknowledged in the text—something Bushman himself should have done (though the borderline deception of Bushman's discussion here is beyond the scope of what we can argue at Wikipedia because he's a reliable source). I certainly believe you have secondary sources to support your position; but then, so do I. Our goal is to create an NPOV paragraph, and all reliable sources have to be considered, including those that are critical of Smith and Mormonism. For what it's worth, I do believe that every statement made by Smith is unproven unless it can be verified from another source; this is the only prudent position to take at such a controversial article.--John Foxe (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of irritating someone (I don't know who yet) I think this is an extraordinary amount of discussion for a fairly simply matter. I think that offering the 4 versions of paragraphs was a good faith effort to colaborate on the part of JohnFoxe. As someone who is not a Mormon and has little first hand knowledge, i think less is more. The Mormon theological terminology used to describe the kind of vision he had was irrelevant to me. I am sure it belongs in a BYU text book, but for an encyclopedia, it just seems like too much information to be useful in getting a sense of who the guy was. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@Elmmapleoakpine: Thank you for being willing to stick your neck out and comment at a discussion like this. I agree about the extraordinary length of this discussion (the first bit is archived already), but I think that eventually John Foxe and I will come to an understanding. I think he sees this as being an issue of fighting what he perceives as being a "Mormon point of view", while I see it as being an issue of keeping the article in line with reliable sources. They are both noble causes, and should not necessarily be incompatible with each other. Though this particular discussion has been going in circles for a while, I think we are gradually getting closer to a compromise.

I do have one question for you where I'd be very interested in your opinion. You mentioned the "theological terminology" used to describe the vision. I was wondering if you'd be willing to have a look at the paragraph in question and perhaps offer an opinion on which parts you see as being theological jargon. I've put a copy of it here without the citation clutter if you're interested. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

@Adjwilley, as I see it, the reason why we can't just "tell the story" with liberal use of "Smith saids" is that the thing that must be given DUE prominence is perspectives. Joseph Smith's perspective on the first vision, whether related through Remini or directly from the LDS canon, is just one perspective. And it happens to be a minority perspective. It is also a minority perspective that the first vision mattered much, if at all, to Smith's early history. Therefore, merely giving it too much space in the "early years" section gives undue importance to the perspective that the vision was a momentous historical event. So rather than outlining all the different perspectives on the first vision at this point, or just providing one Smith perspective while ignoring the others, I think it is better to just very briefly state a few consensus facts. There is no argument that the first vision story was a rather important part of his impact, so it is much easier to devote more space in that context, rather than in the historical context of his early life. COGDEN 02:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ John Foxe and I have come to an agreement on a short, two-sentence version. The citations are still a tad messy, but those can easily be cleaned up. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate User talk:Adjwilley's willingness to talk this through and reach a compromise we both can accept.--John Foxe (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@Adjwilley, It may be too late to be useful, but the theological terminology I was most confused by was "First Vision" and "Personal Conversion". On second look perhaps these were not Theological terms, but in the context of both the paragraphs you showed me, the use of them was not clear and I assumed they were religious terms. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Seer stone stuff

Seems there is a dispute over "seer stones" in the lead. Apparently the young Joseph had some stones that he used for finding (or searching for) buried treasures. That fits the scrying usage. Then he later used the same "seer stones" in a religious context in translating some gold plates -- and this transformed the "stones" into something different and they became seer stones (Latter Day Saints). A user and some anons want to say the scrying stones used to find treasures were religious objects before the fact. Now to me that's a bit off ... but "miracle" stuff often is. Does there exist a reliable source that states when these "magical stones" became and/or should be considered religious objects? Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the new user and the IP are the same editor - an eager beaver who removed anything related to treasure hunting, including secondary sources. I've since warned the user, and hope the drift is gotten. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• There is no reason to specifically mention the seer stones in the lead. The mention of folk religious practice is sufficient at that point. The lead is supposed to be a quick summary of the article, having sentances that begin with "for example" is the antithesis of this. Also, since there are absolutely no sources in the lead, the attack on people for removing sentances that are "linked to secondary sources" is an unjustified attack on those who seek to inprove this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing mention of the seer stones from the lead is a brazen attempt to push a religiously motivated POV.--John Foxe (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Seer Stones mention is probably not best put in the lead. However, I don't think it is as you say a brazen attempt to push religiously motivated POV. The seer stone "stuff" is arguably why Joseph Smith became historically significant. A Morman perspective is needed for this article to be fully developed and if in instances people use "theological terminology" in the article in the everyday way they might speak about such things, I don't think that is an automatic attempt to push POV. While I know there has been a lot of back and forth, I think we can still assume good faith here. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC) BTW- I am happy to continue contributing to this discussion, I would just ask if you really wan't my input to make a post on my talk page. THX!

• Elmmaplaeoakpine, you miss what was said. Foxe had the audacity to claim that not mentioning the seer stone is "religious POV". Not mentioning the seer stone in the lead is giving due weight. We mention "folk religious practices". That is sufficient for the lead. The whole point of a lead is to focus on the most important items. The connection between seer stones and the Book of Mormon is an issue that is open to debate. Foxe clearly wants us to not only assume that the seer stone is the main thing used to translate the Book of Mormon, but he wants to argue that the way the plates were found was through the use of a seer stone. Foxe is the one with a "blatantly religious POV". I am just removing a fact that opens up a complexed set of issues from discussion at a point in the lead where it serves no purpose. I still think the lead needs to be reduced to be even shorter. Encyclopedia articles are not meant to cover everything possible. If people want to learn more about folk religious practices they can go and search this out elsewhere. There is no purpose served by mentioning the seer stone in the lead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm adding factual content, based upon public documents from that period. While Smith may not have repudiated the stone's power, the practice of using stones to find treasure was considered illegal at the time, and that Smith was found guilty in a court of law for engaging in this practice. The fact that Smith didn't repudiate the stone's power after being found guilty could lead the reader to conclude (amongst many other things) that Smith:

• believed that their were laws of man and/or laws of nature and/or laws of a Supreme Being (a preliminary basis fo a separation of Church and State argument)
• had power/ability/guidance derived from a Supreme Being or other extra-terrestrial source
• was unique among men, and possessed abilities beyond that of the average man, etc.

In Summary, I believe that showing that Smith held to his beliefs (or at least didn't repudiate them) after being found guilty by a court of law, says a lot about the man. How one interprets that is up to the reader.Bilbobag (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seer_stone_(Latter_Day_Saints)&oldid=476834552" Bilbobag (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems the referenced material should go in the article body. As stated in the edit summary removing the seer stone bit from the lead: "mentioned sufficiently in the body of the article", if it is covered "sufficiently" in the body, then should be summarized or mentioned in the lead. Vsmith (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Good comment. Took your suggestions and those of FyzixFighter - combined this into a single summary sentence.Bilbobag (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

To John Foxe and A Sniper. I believe the following should be added to the "early Life" section. It's sequential from a time perspective, presents a variety of viewpoints while maintaining a NPOV, provides the reader with a better perspective within which to understand Smith, and is factual and sourced. Would appreciate comments?

Court records from Bainbridge, New York, show that Smith, identified as "The Glass Looker," was before the court on March 20, 1826, on a warrant for an unspecified misdemeanor charge,[84] and that the judge issued a mittimus for Smith to be held, either during or after the proceedings.[85] Although Smith's associate Oliver Cowdery (who had not met Smith as of 1826) later stated that Smith was "honorably acquitted",[86] the result of the proceeding is unclear, with some eye-witnesses (including the court reporter) claiming he was found guilty, others claiming he was "condemned" but "designedly allowed to escape," and yet others claiming he was "discharged" for lack of evidence.[85] In the words of Richard Bushman, there is ample evidence that Smith never "repudiated the stones or denied their power to find treasure. Remnants of the magical culture stayed with him to the end."[8] Bilbobag (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My own preference would be for a simple statement that treasure hunting was illegal in New York and that Smith was once brought to court for "glass looking." Except for the quotation from Bushman, the rest is footnote material.--John Foxe (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, and one I'm not opposed to. However, any telling of Smith's life is loaded with controversy(s). I believe that not establishing/identifying all the incidents in his life for which there is controversy, fails to provide the reader with the whole story of the man's life. I'm not advocating to take a side in any of the controversies, simply that we identify it as an event that had controversy. I believe that failing to identify when there are controversies (and what they are) fails to provide a complete picture of any individual or event, and that is a disservice to the reader...it's almost as if we're intentionally "sweeping things under the rug". Bilbobag (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My concern is stylistic. (No one who's been reading this page for more than a couple days would suggest that I was trying to sweep under the rug anything disparaging of Joseph Smith.) A couple of sentences is enough for an encyclopedia article: "When Smith was twenty, he was charged in Bainbridge, New York court with "glass looking," which was a criminal offense at the time. In the words of Richard Bushman, there is ample evidence that Smith never "repudiated the stones or denied their power to find treasure. Remnants of the magical culture stayed with him to the end." The rest goes in the footnote.--John Foxe (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

John -Didn't mean to imply that my comment was directed at you. Apologies if that's how it came across. Rather I was trying to explain to editors in general (both on this page and the Seerstones in Mormonism page) that Smith's life had many controversies. Failing to detail them isn't in anyone's best interest. My approach would be to list the various POVs and let the reader come to thier own conclusions (see my post below)/ Again, apologies.Bilbobag (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added information about the 1826 event (I'm not calling it a trial). The first change was to remove the Ostling reference that Smith was found not guilty. They actually state the exact opposite. I've included their conclusions about the result of the 1826 event, as well as 2 other, differing statements about the result of the 1826 event. By listing the various POVs we can let the reader come to their own conclusions.Bilbobag (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed as too detailed for the lead section and the bracketed numbers indicate it was copied from some other article. Vsmith (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've moved details to the "Early Years" section, with a single line in the lead section. In the detailed section I reference the source. Hope this helps Bilbobag (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That is one part of my objection, how about fixing thos braketed ref numbers in you cut & paste copy? Vsmith (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree that that should be done, and was in process of doing same, when FyzixFighter removed all additions. In an attempt to come to consenses, am eliminating single line from lead (Still don't uinderstand how this is "too much", but will comply). Am re-instating the paragraph to Early Years section, with appropriate referenceing.Bilbobag (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have rolled back your recent edits, Bilbobag, as this is undue weight for the lede. Add secondary sources to the existing footnote or place the info later in the article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: I can see that Bilbobag did indeed place the paragraph in the Early Years section. However, it is a rambling piece that needs Wiki work before it is reinserted. Even Foxe would allow that much of it is footnote fodder, especially the 'conflicting POVs'. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate comments. Will re-write, using bulleted points to show the various outcomes (. Am working on/learning protocol for footnotes. Bilbobag (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There is limited space in the article, so we need to make sure that we don't give the 1826 trial itself too much space. A lot has been written about his 1826 trial, but it was, after all, a misdemeanor charge. Smith was later arrested twice for capital crimes, and the emphasis on his 1826 misdemeanor charge ought not to be out of proportion to the amount of space spent on those other proceedings. I think mention of the 1826 trial should be no more than one sentence in the body of the article, and that it does not merit mention in the lede. Smith's religious and magical use of seer stones in general is quite important, however, mainly because the stones were an important element of early Mormon mysticism, and was integrally connected with his early status as a prophet, and with the translation of the Book of Mormon. I think the existing balance on that is fairly good. COGDEN 01:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree and have added that one sentence.--John Foxe (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's a funny thing that all of us seem to have missed - a sentence on the 1826 court proceedings has already been in the early life summary section, placed chronologically after the 1823 Moroni visions. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Moroni or Nephi?

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

OK - fair point, Foxe. What say everyone? Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the most pertinent name to use depends on what the various LDS denominations believe and teach at this time. For the LDS Church, the current edition of the Pearl of Great Price teaches that it was Moroni that appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith. This teaching is substantiated by Church History in the Fulness of Times and the 2012 Deseret News Church Almanac. What do other Latter Day Saint denominations currently teach? If it were just the LDS Church under discussion, I would say to use Moroni. But where there are other denominations involved in the Latter Day Saint movement, some consensus should be reached based upon the current teachings of all religions affiliated with the movement. Good idea, or not? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't clear why the April 1838 history said "Nephi." The name of the angel had been identified in church publications as "Moroni" as early as 1835, and Smith explicitly identified him as Moroni in July 1838, just a few months after he wrote his 1838 history. Maybe Smith believed he saw both Nephi and Moroni. Maybe he got confused. Maybe he changed his mind one way and then back again. I don't have a big problem using the name "Moroni," but at one point in the history of the article I think we just said "an angel" an linked to the angel Moroni article. COGDEN 00:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. That being the case, I can now definitely say I am more in favor of using the name Moroni. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As to what other denominations use/teach: the Community of Christ typically highlights the discrepancy between the 1838 version and the other versions. It doesn't really take a position on why the discrepancy exists: it just notes that there is one. In the Wikipedia context, I don't have a problem with it just saying "an angel", but I suppose it should still link to Angel Moroni, since that's the article that talks about the angel identified by Smith. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Events in the Life of Joseph Smith

I made this chronology to better show the life of Joseph Smith.--217.230.255.153 (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Events in the Life of Joseph Smith
Important dates and locations in the life of Joseph Smith
Dec. 23, 1805	Joseph Smith, Jr., is born at Sharon, Windsor County, Vermont
Spring 1820	Joseph Smith receives a visitation from two heavenly personages; God the Father and His son Jesus Christ.
Sept. 21, 1823	Joseph prays and is visited three times during the night by an angel named Moroni. Moroni tells him about a hidden book and quotes scriptures from the books of Acts, Joel, Isaiah, and Malachi.
Sept. 22, 1823	Joseph goes to the place where the gold plates are concealed, but is instructed by the angel Moroni not to retrieve them.
Sept. 22, 1827	Joseph receives the gold plates.
Dec. 1827–Feb. 1828	Joseph begins translating the gold plates (The Book of Mormon) with Emma and her brother Reuben as scribes.
July 1, 1829	According to David Whitmer, the translation was completed July 1, 1829. Oliver Cowdery copies an entire second manuscript in case of robbery or destruction of the first.
Aug. 25, 1829	A contract is drawn up with E.B. Grandin to print 5,000 copies of the book for $3,000. Martin Harris mortgages his farm to Grandin to pay for the printing.
Mar. 26, 1830	The Wayne Sentinel announces that the Book of Mormon has been published and advertises its sale.
Apr. 6, 1830	The "Church of Jesus Christ" is officially organized in the home of Peter Whitmer, Sr., in Fayette, NY.
Mar. 24, 1832	Joseph Smith is tarred by a mob.
Mar. 29, 1832	Joseph's adopted son, Joseph Murdock Smith, dies from a cold caught when he was pulled from Joseph's arms during the mobbing.
Dec. 1832	Joseph receives a prophecy about the Civil War.
Oct. 27, 1838	Missouri Governor Lilburn W. Boggs's issues an extermination order against the Mormons.
Oct. 30, 1838	A mob of 240 men shoot and kill nearly 20 Latter-day Saints and wound about 15 in an unexpected raid at Jacob Haun's Mill, Caldwell County, Missouri.
May 9-10, 1839	Joseph Smith Moves to Nauvoo, Illinois.
June 1, 1840	The city of Nauvoo grows to 250 homes
June 24-25, 1844	Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum Smith leave for Carthage and are arrested for treason by Constable David Bettisworth.
June 27, 1844 Thursday	Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith killed by a mob at Carthage Jail, Illinois.

The chronology might be a good idea, but it needs a lot of work before it is introduced to the page. There is no mention of his marriage or other important events that shaped the course of his life. I suggest that this timeline be discussed first BEFORE it is reintroduced to this article. A tip for you: If you want your edits to carry more weight and not get changed as much, you may want to consider getting an official WP account. In general, edits made by IP users tend to be reverted a lot more. Anyways, after the timeline has been polished, I think it would be a good addition to the article. What does everyone else think? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)