Talk:First Vision/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Scope change from LDS church to LDS movement churches

This one is easier to explain. 'LDS Church' typically refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes called the 'Utah' church, and by far the largest denomination of the Latter Day Saint movement. The 'movement' refers to all denominations that trace their ancestory back to Joseph Smith, Jr. and claim to be the legitimate successor to the church he organized in 1830 (for more information see Succession crisis). This criticism is related to the 'JS Jr., made it up' POV I explained above, and goes something like this:

Not only did JS, Jr. make up the FV, his immediate successors knew that he did, that's why they never talked about it! But later leaders were desperate for something to strengthen the faith of the Church after stopping the practice of plural marriage, so they siezed on the First Vision, after all, it's such a good story and those silly mormons are all so gullible, they believe everything their leaders tell them! 74s181 03:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
And of course the other LDS movement churches all had so much love and respect for the Utah church (after the bitter |succession fight) that they immediately followed their lead and also adopted the FV as a core doctrine after having kept it a secret from their members for over 50 years. And this is why all the LDS movement denominations teach the FV as a foundational event today, even though it wasn't 'emphasized' in the early church. 74s181 11:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. And if you believe all of that I have some spare indulgences to sell you.<g> 74s181 11:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, not all the criticisms of the FV are as silly as this, but they all work better when presented as 'historical facts' in an 'encyclodepedic tone' rather than as 'criticism'. I don't insist they be labeled 'criticism', I would be satisfied if the implied conclusions were explicitly stated, labeled 'opinion' or 'interpretation', whatever you want, properly attributed, and balanced, all as prescribed in WP:NPOV. 74s181 03:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But John Foxe won't allow it. This is the crux of the biscuit, this is the one issue that has created so much contention on this article, this is why I was so excited when I thought he was finally getting it in Talk:First_Vision#A_separate_section.3F. 74s181 03:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

74, can you provide citations for the stated fact that "...most [Latter Day Saint denominations] 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."? The fact is new to me, and I would appreciate a pointer or some references to educate me before we discuss this further. Tom Haws 19:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought that 'ended the Great Apostasy' was something you added, Tom Haws. Or, maybe you're questioning whether 'most' LDS denominations believe this. I didn't think any of this is disputed, but if so, I think there are adequate references in the 'Beliefs' section. 74s181 00:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"maybe you're questioning whether 'most' LDS denominations believe this" That's right. I honestly don't know. I know the LDS Church view. But I don't think (though I don't know for sure) that it is the standard sympathetic view. We want to present the consensus sympathetic view, but I am not sure what that might be. Tom Haws 18:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
By 'sympathetic view' do you mean, the view of those 'sympathetic' to the FV, or in other words, those who believe 'something' happened? If so, I have to say that most of the LDS denominations that I know about teach that the Great Apostasy occurred, and that JS, Jr., was called by God to restore His church. The Community of Christ has de-emphasized the 'apostasy' aspect of the FV, so 'ended the Great Apostasy' doesn't apply to them, so 'most' is probably correct. The First_Vision#Community_of_Christ section explains this, I don't think it is a detail we need to cover in the lead, but if someone wants to suggest different wording I say, go for it, but I think there are much bigger problems in the article than this. 74s181 00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We're making progress

Les has made some profitable changes. I especially liked the way he handled the first paragraph of the lead.

Nevertheless, as I've said all along, I oppose any suggestion that historical evidence is "criticism" (or "opinion" or "interpretation"). Facts are facts. As such, they have no POV regardless of how distressing they may be to the faithful. It's fine to note how Mormon apologists try to deal with awkward evidence, but the facts themselves are not criticism and cannot be labeled as such.

There's no reason to debate Joseph Smith's character here. Seeing visions wasn't all that uncommon in that time and place. There's no reason to say that Smith was a liar. Let the reader make that judgment for himself.--John Foxe 14:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your positive outlook. I feel that with patience and good faith in one another we can hopefully come up with an article that won't attract POV edits and will be a self-evidently reasonable piece of reporting. Perhaps if I can help unpeel the core issues, we can then impose on a few other editors to review a brief synopsis and join us for a few days to forge a weighty consensus. Tom Haws 19:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
John, please tell me if I understand right what you are saying. You believe that there are facts that should be given first billing in the article, and that those facts should be identified as such. You also believe that your ideas can be implemented without making Joseph Smith look bad. Did I understand you correctly, or did I twist something? Tom Haws 20:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It's the historical evidence, not my non-Mormon POV, that's important. Historical facts should be determinative and will be so long as they're not labeled opinion, interpretation, or criticism needing "balance" from Mormon apologetics.--John Foxe 22:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
John, the problem we keep running into is what you perceive as "historical facts". Quite often, they are perceptions about facts, not the facts themselves. For example, "Possible anachronisms" is (IMHO) a POV statement rather then "Differences". We all agree there are differences between various accounts, but we don't all agree that there are discrepancies or anachronisms. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 02:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
That's why I used the term "Possible anachronisms." Mormons can respond to the historical evidence so long as facts are not called criticism and the response is identified as Mormon apologetics. I've just laid out the historical evidence.--John Foxe 15:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
And I repeat that "Differences" is NPOV. Someone could say "Possible fraud" and claim that they were simply presenting historical facts. What you call historical evidence, I call interpretation of historical facts. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Then you need to prove that the "possible anachronisms" are interpretations rather than facts as certain as the fact that "Mars is a planet." The one you removed is not in the "Mars is a planet" category, although if Smith had seen something so contrary to the orthodoxy of his day, we might have expected clearer explication of this startlingly new doctrine. Of course, it's possible to "call" any of the anachronisms interpretations, but that doesn't make them so.
John Foxe, you've already agreed that there are many apologetic responses to the so-called 'possible anachronisms'. These responses do not argue that the excerpts are not accurate quotes from the FV, but they do argue against the interpretation that the excerpts represent contraditions among the accounts. That's all the evidence needed to 'prove' that these 'possible anachronisms' are disputed facts, requiring attribution. Like I have said before, you present an excerpt from account A, that's a fact. Present an excerpt from account B, that's also a fact. Put the two excerpts next to each other and you have a comparison, which leads to a conclusion, which is a POV. Or, to put it a third way, if the apologetic response is an 'alternate' opinion, that implies that there is an 'original' opinion. 74s181 00:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Out of respect, Bill, I'll leave the sentence on Smith's character in place for the moment. But I'll fight any attempt to create straw men out of that phrase. Unlike the anachronisms, character deficiencies are truly matters of interpretation.--John Foxe 18:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the article to the last edit by 74. Foxe deleted an entire section because it was unsourced. The proper procedure is to add a {{fact}} tag and give people some time to come up with citations. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It would have been gentlemenly to have restored just that particular paragraph instead of reverting all my changes. In any case, Les is hardly a naif, and if he can document anything in that paragraph, he knows how to do it. I'll be glad to put the {{Fact}} tags on it tomorrow if he reverts me again.--John Foxe 20:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"It would have been gentlemenly to have restored just that particular paragraph instead of reverting all my changes." Wow. The only thing I can think of to say about this is politically incorrect. 74s181 13:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"...if he reverts me again." Reverts YOU again? Maybe I've missed something, here's how it looks to me.
  • You and I had been discussing adding a section for 'response' or 'reaction'. You walked away from the discussion, and Tom Haws suggested I not talk to you.
  • I edited in good faith.
  • You reverted my edits.
  • I restored some but not all of the material you deleted, and edited again in an attempt to satisfy the new objection you stated in your edit comments.
  • You reverted my edits.
  • Repeat. Again. And. Again. 74s181 01:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The point, John Foxe, is that I am trying to move forward with my edits, while you continue to try to prevent changes to the article that don't agree with your agenda. It's pretty crazy, isn't it? I mean, here I am, a believing LDS, and I'm trying to get more criticism into the article, and there you are, probably a Presbyterian, definitely anti-mormon, and you are risking WP sanctions to keep certain kinds of criticism out of the article. Why is that? Because my agenda is served by exposing the First Vision to the light, alleged warts and all. Your agenda, John Foxe, seems to be to hide certain things in the darkness. Should I spell it out further? 74s181 01:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
You goofed, John Foxe. You called them 'possible' anachronisms. That means that YOU believe they aren't absolute facts, in the sense that 'Mars is a planet'. 74s181 22:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have revised the intro of the "Reactions" section, including a summary of what I believe are the main theories pertaining to the (non-)event. In the process, I resurrected several quotes that got recently deleted. Since statements about experts pertaining to the event are historical facts, they are perfectly valid. In fact, I believe that stating isolated facts without citing an expert to explain how those facts relate to the article is WP:OR and/or lacking WP:RS. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 09:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I was looking at your edit and thinking that I would rather have the FV excerpt and the Jensen and Mouw quotes in the body of the article rather than in the footnotes, then I realized that JF had completely deleted all three of them from the article in his last edit, and that I had missed restoring the Jensen / Mouw quotes in my last edit.
Good catch, it'll be interesting to see what he does with this arrangement. 74s181 10:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to rewrite some of material and put it in the "anachronisms" section. Each day it seems that less of what I've done has been reverted, so on that ground alone, I think we really are making progress.--John Foxe 10:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your change on POV grounds. You replaced a series of citations with your own version of the issue. Once again, it isn't the historical facts in isolation, but rather how others interpret those facts that should be included. Selecting which facts to state is a POV decision.
A good example of this is the old "identical personages" argument that I deleted earlier. Here is the original:
Although in 1838 Joseph Smith said that he had seen the Father and Son in identical human bodies, in 1834, he had taught that "the Father was a personage of spirit" while the Son "was a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man."<ref>Lectures on Faith 5: 2c,d. Lectures on Faith The Lectures on Faith were included in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants.</ref>
This argument ignores the very next verse in the Lectures of Faith, which states exactly what the First Vision account states:
[Lec 5:2e] He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father, being begotten of him;
This is a typical anti-mormon technique - to quote out of context and to present an interpretation different than how LDS view the quote. While is is NPOV to interpret Mormon doctrine differently, it is POV to present an interpretation as what Mormons believe. The implication is usually that Mormons don't realize that their own beliefs are contradictory, when in reality many of us understand these "surprise" arguments and dismiss them. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 13:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not as naive as you believe. I've heard that explanation for the LoF problem before but think it merits consideration only as Mormon apologetics. If Smith had had the shattering experience he claimed in 1838, he would have said, "Listen, men, God the Father is not spirit as you've been told since childhood. He has a material body, and I am a witness." But the issues are too hard to explicate for those unacquainted with Mormonism, and like you say, Mormons simply "dismiss them."--John Foxe 22:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
John Foxe, 'reverted' and 'progress' are your interpretation of events. I don't think I have reverted anything you've added to the article. I think that I've only restored material you deleted, and every time I've done this I've edited the restored material to try to address the complaint you voiced when you deleted it. I'm not going to waste my time doing an edit history analysis that everyone would ignore, but I think the 'facts' would show that that the closest I have come to deleting anything you added recently is when I repeatedly moved the critical use of the Jensen quote from the 'believers' section to the criticism or 'anachronisms' section, and I only did that to balance the 'Mouw' quote that you had deleted. 74s181 13:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
And, BTW, why are you ok with the intro you added to the 'anachronisms' section, but you're not ok with the similar intro that I added and you deleted at least three times? 74s181 13:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to find some sort of compromise wording.--John Foxe 22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me give you a hint, then. If you are trying for a compromise, don't start by blowing away an entire section/contribution and then calling it "reworking".
As for apologetics or critics, let me repeat that selecting specific historical facts to insert into an article is POV unless you can document that an expert on the subject has used those same facts to prove a point. I suggest you start adding citations to identify which Anti-Mormon tracts you are getting your "facts"; otherwise, what you are doing is WP:OR. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 22:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I think our attempts at compromise wording get closer each time. But historical facts are historical facts. They need no citation to anyone. They are not anti-Mormon criticism (although, of course, anti-Mormons are free to use them); they are facts. The charge of WP:OR is simply Mormon smokescreen for being caught in an apologetic corner.--John Foxe 11:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
"...our attempts at compromise wording..." Our attempts? With one exception, your contribution to 'compromise wording' has been to revert our contributions back to some past version that you liked, with some kind of bogus complaint. We would then restore the deleted material and attempt to accommodate your complaint. John Foxe, other than a 'tweak' here and there, your primary contribution to compromise wording has been, after multiple such edit / revert cycles to 'permit' someone else's contribution to remain in the article. 74s181 12:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"...historical facts... need no citation..." Wrong again, you are presenting primary source facts to support a position or claim, this requires a citation from a secondary source: (emphasis added)
...most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources...An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims... (seeWP:RS#Types_of_source_material and WP:PSTS) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74s181 (talk • contribs) 12:13, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
"...closer each time" There is no question that the article is in constant flux. Some of the changes are a bit different each time, but some things are very consistent, for example, certain quotes keep getting deleted, along with any attempt to present certain alternate POV or neutralize existing POV. 74s181 12:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
"...Mormon smokescreen..." Yes, John Foxe, your unwillingness or inability to understand Wikipedia policies concerning neutral point of view, original research, or what constitutes a good article are a major impediment to the progress of this article. 74s181 12:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you've managed to penetrate our evil plot, I've 'come clean' and added the Mormon Smokescreen Cabal to the list of Wikipedia Cabals. 74s181 12:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I was amused. But don't you think that posting something like that violates WP:NPA?--John Foxe 15:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You may be correct re:WP:NPA, so I broke my normal rule about editing while at work and removed 'John Foxe' as the discoverer of the Cabal. Of course, anyone who looks at the citations will find out who, but 'facts' are 'facts', eh? <g> 74s181 18:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Facts needed

I don't think its profitable or possible to go any further with this article without getting hard citations for the following question (Tom Haws 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)):

What do the following individuals and organizations call and say about the boyhood theophany of Joseph Smith?

TCoJCoLdS - covered in the beliefs section, with links. With 13 million members TCoJCoLdS is 10 times larger than all the other groups put together, so anything that is true about TCoJCoLdS is true about 'most' within the LDS movement. 74s181 02:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
CoC (aka RLDS) - refers to FV as the 'grove experience', covered in the beliefs section, with links. 74s181 02:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The Church of Jesus Christ (aka Bickertonites) - Ok, we have nothing in the article about them, a quick search didn't uncover anything about the FV on their website. With 15,000 members they are larger than Church of Christ (Temple Lot). If we can find a reference that says they DO NOT teach the FV we should state that in the article. 74s181 02:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Restoration Branches - 10,000-15,000 members, they consider themselves a continuation of the RLDS church, so they probably have similar beliefs to CoC regarding the FV. 74s181 02:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
FLDS - Everything I can find about this group focuses on their practice of polygamy, but I remember someone somewhere saying that they also believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to JS, Jr., but they refer to God the Father as 'Adam'. Of course, that doesn't really answer your question. 74s181 02:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Jan Shipps - Not really sure what you're looking for re: groupings. Maybe you're thinking that variations in belief vary along regional lines, i.e., 'prairie saints' believe X and 'Rocky mountain saints' believe Y. Well, the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) HQ is right across the street from Community of Christ HQ, both 'prairie saint' groups, but the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) FV beliefs are much closer to TCoJCoLdS. 74s181 02:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I would think if we could get a tight handle on all this, we might be able to craft an accurate and NPOV intro. Tom Haws 18:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that to the extent that reliable sources are available, the views of these different denominations on the FV should be in the article. But I also think that there are much bigger problems with the article than presenting the views of groups that represent 1/10th of 1% of the believers. 74s181 00:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The question is, what is a fact, not what is "Truth"

I've quoted excerpts from WP policy statements on these talk pages many times, but fear not, I'm not going to do it again today. This time I'm going to use my own words. 74s181 04:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The question is not what is 'Truth'. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to 'prove' anything or draw conclusions, they are not concerned with 'Truth'; higher 'Truth', lower 'Truth' or 'Truth' of any kind. Wikipedia is only concerned with 'facts'. 74s181 04:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

But, what is a fact? Still the wrong question. This isn't the real world, it is Wikipedia, a society / community somewhat apart from the real world. There is a product here, but it is given away for free, there aren't even any commercials. People invest many hours editing without pay, someone comes along and erases their work, and they just accept it and try again. Of course there are some similarities. In both worlds there are those who gleefully violate the law until they see a policeman, then quickly become polite, law-abiding citizens, putting on their best Eddie Haskell face if caught. However, there are many real differences between the way people think and act here, and the way they think and act in the real world, and that includes the terminology they use. 74s181 04:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What is a fact on Wikipedia? Ah, that is the real question. Neutral Point of View is a fundamental Wikipedia principle, maybe the fundamental principle. A great deal has been written on it, but ultimately, I think it is very simple. 74s181 04:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything said in an article on Wikipedia should be a 'fact' in the sense that everyone (except maybe a few POV warriors) agrees that it is true. 74s181 04:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all there is to NPOV. No compromises, negotiation, etc. Just the facts, and if anyone disputes a fact as stated, then it must be reformulated until everyone agrees it is a fact. 74s181 04:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, my own words. So, how does this work in practice?

Joseph Smith had a clear motive for changing his story in 1838, a period of crisis within the Latter Day Saint Movement.

This may be true, JS, Jr. may have had a motive in the same way that a grieving widow who receives a large life insurance check may have, in the eyes of a policeman, had a 'motive' for killing her husband. The statement above says JS, Jr. had a motive, but it implies far more, it implies that he probably did change his story. In any case, I don't agree with the statement, therefore it is not a 'fact' as far as WP is concerned. However:

Grant Palmer noted that Joseph Smith had a clear motive for changing his story in 1838, a period of crisis within the Latter Day Saint Movement.

I agree with this fact. I still don't believe that JS, Jr. changed his story, but I can agree that Grant Palmer thinks he may have done so. I'm ok with this as long as there is a reference where I can verify that Grant Palmer really said this if I want to do so. 74s181 04:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

So, what about 'anachronisms'? Besides being a word that most people won't understand, the problem is that use of this word states, as fact, that there are anachronisms, or differences between the accounts. Well, clearly the accounts are not word-for-word identical, but most LDS who have studied the accounts believe that while they don't all contain the same details, they do describe the same event without contradiction. Let's look at the phrase currently in the article: 74s181 04:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A number of possible anachronisms have been detected in Smith's various accounts of the First Vision.

Detected by whom? If there is one expert who has 'detected' all of these 'possible' anachronisms then attribute the statement to that expert. If not, then maybe we can attribute the statement to a group. I'll leave the identification of that group as an exercise for the reader. 74s181 04:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. If the above needs to be said, it can probably be said in a more tactful way in deference to LDS readers who hold the 1838 account canonical. The general tone is perhaps not appropriate for the article. A better approach might be something like, "The various surviving accounts of the event attributed to Smith aren't conclusive as to the dating of the event." Tom Haws 14:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Final point. I think I've shown that 'facts' on Wikipedia are not the same thing as 'facts' in the real world. It should be clear that any belief held by a significant group and stated by a citable expert has just as much place on Wikipedia as any other belief, as long as it is stated in a neutral way. So, the statement that only criticisms based on 'anachronisms' can be included in the article is just wrong. Certain editors have insisted that certain criticisms that are allegedly embarrassing to believers must be included. I've never been embarrassed by properly neutralized POV, but I must insist that certain other criticisms that may be embarrassing to certain non-believing editors should also be included. 74s181 04:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Similar 'Good Article' example

I was looking for ways to improve the article that would be less contentious and was wondering about the footnotes. They don't look very good as they are. There seems to be a mixing of styles, also, some are nothing more than a reference, while others are lengthy full quotes, sometimes completely at odds with the referring article text.

I wanted to see how references and footnotes are normally done on WP, so I looked at some good articles. I found Book of Abraham which seems to be similar to the First Vision in several ways.

  • It is controversial.
  • It is related to JS, Jr. and the LDS movement.
  • It is a similar kind of topic, that is, JS, Jr. made certain assertions and wrote certain things for which there is now a considerable amount of critical and apologetic response.
  • There are many citations, including references to books, websites, and LDS scriptures.

One big difference is that there is actual physical evidence which has been examined by modern experts. Also, the Book of Abraham is not nearly as central to the JS, Jr. debate as the First Vision, but the BoA article does appear to contain all the criticism that I have heard, and some that I have not.

In fact, the Book of Abraham article contains more scientific evidence against LDS belief than the First Vision article, yet it has a completely different feel to me, an LDS true believer who has studied and taught lessons from and about the Book of Abraham. The article seemed much more open, honest, and fair. Unlike my initial (and present) response to the First Vision article, I didn't feel an urgent need to drop everything else I was doing and start rewriting.

What I actually felt was hope. Hope that it may still be possible for a controversial subject like the First Vision to be presented on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, in a manner that is truly neutral and fair, educational, but inoffensive to believers and critics alike

I invite everyone who is editing the First Vision article or thinking about doing so to take a look at the Book of Abraham article. Let's try to have a discussion here about what is different about the Book of Abraham article that makes it a good article, and how we can apply those principles to improve the First Vision article. 74s181 13:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Book of Abraham doesn't read very well to me, regardless of its status. I mean, it's wordy and awkwardly written. First Vision packs a lot more punch in a shorter amount of space considering that its issues are broader. It's not surprising that the BoA article would include more scientific evidence—there's an existing manuscript to examine. I once heard Richard Bushman discuss the BoA and eventually turned my eyes away from his because I was embarrassed for him.--John Foxe 22:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
"Book of Abraham doesn't read very well to me..." Of course it doesn't read well to you, John Foxe. It presents an aspect of the LDS faith in a plausible, NPOV manner, despite containing a great deal of criticism. That doesn't fit your agenda. 74s181 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
"...regardless of its status. I mean, it's wordy and awkwardly written." Well, it's a Good Article. That means that it meets the standards of this community. I think this says more about you, John Foxe, than it says about the Book of Abraham article. 74s181 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
"First Vision packs a lot more punch in a shorter amount of space..." Yes it does, John Foxe, because it is an anti-mormon tract written in the modern style. Today, the 'rant' of an older style tract would make most people's eyes roll, they wouldn't give it a moment's consideration. However, the First Vision article presents the anti-mormon POV in a scholarly tone. It criticizes without ever explicitly stating a criticism. It keeps certain things hidden in the dark. It is sly, sneaky, and underhanded. It reads like an anti-mormon tract written by Eddie Haskell after he went to graduate school. To use your own word John Foxe, it is 'foxey'. 74s181 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I said I had hope. I still do, in spite of the fact that you are unable or unwilling to understand Neutral Point of View, or what makes a good article good.
Your tendency, Les, is to judge the quality of an article largely on the grounds of how well it represents the LDS point of view rather than considering the importance of clarity and style.--John Foxe 15:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The Book of Abraham article contains more 'factual' criticism than the First Vision article ever could. Yes, it also represents the LDS point of view. It represents both POVs in a neutral, balanced, and fair manner, this is one of the reasons why it is a good article. You've expressed an interest in getting First Vision to good article status, what you've said about Book of Abraham doesn't make sense to me in that context. 74s181 01:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good

As I've said, we get closer on every editing round. If you now add material from apologetic websites to the anachronisms section, that would eliminate any possible question about OR.--John Foxe 15:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that when you "restored" the LMS quote, you included a different quote. I still don't understand what her comments about the visit with Moroni has to do with dating the First Vision. I think the quote would be very appropriate for dating the second vision, but not the first. Please explain. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
What Lucy Mack Smith said is unimportant if one believes that the First Vision actually occurred c. 1820; but if you believe, as I do, that it was a notion Joseph Smith cobbled together in the 1830s, then the second vision was the first and LMS's comments about a family discussion regarding which denomination was true makes perfect sense because it occurred after the revival of 1824. So does Smith's phrase "Presbyterianism is not true." Lucy and some of Joseph's sibs weren't Presbyterians until after Alvin's death. Think of the oddity of Smith telling his mother in 1820 that Presbyterianism wasn't true, then having her join the Western Presbyterian church c. 1824 but without either of them recalling a religious disagreement. The other possibility is even more difficult to credit, that Lucy was in error and actually joined the church before Alvin died. (The membership records for the crucial years are missing.)--John Foxe 21:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The first paragraph looks ok. Now, on to the second and third paragraphs. These sentences are the first that stick in my craw as being possibly inaccurate: "by the end of the nineteenth century it had become a foundational element of the faith. Today, most denominations within the movement teach that it was an actual event that marked the beginning of the Latter Day Saint restoration." Tom Haws 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A. "...element of the faith." Which faith? Do we mean the LDS Church? Rocky Mountain flavor? Do we need further information? Tom Haws
B. "...most denominations..." Weasel words again. Which denomination teach this? Is this accurate?

And the third paragraph has this: "XYZ have challenged details." I think this is unnecessarily combative. I would prefer something like "XYZ have offered different views of the event." It's bad to set up an adversarial tone in the article. Let's keep the intro scholarly and sympathetic. Sympathetic to the Bushmans, the Quinns, the John Foxes, and anybody else who is doing better than laughing at the First Vision. If they all are respectful and assuming Smith's good faith, we should give them the same respect. Tom Haws 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write the 2nd paragraph, I don't agree with the POV presented, but I think I understand what is meant. 74s181 12:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
A. 'the faith' means, the LDS movement in general, not a particular denomination, and / or, the faith that God chose JS, Jr. to be His prophet. Either interpretation fits. 74s181 12:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
B. 'most denominations' is a weasel word but I believe it is accurate in this case, all the denominations that I know anything about (TCoJCoLdS, CoC(RLDS), CoC(TL), Restorationists(RLDS) teach that it was an actual event, and that it marked the beginning of the restoration. We've discussed elsewhere that perhaps some groups don't teach the FV at all, there is a section in the article that presents the details of what three of the larger groups believe, I agree it should / could be expanded, especially if anyone can find a reference for any group that says they don't teach the FV. That's pretty important if true. 74s181 12:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, the second paragraph goes into detail about one particular criticism that is covered elsewhere in the article. My understanding is that the lead should be a summary of the main points of the article. 74s181 12:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You see the second paragraph as criticism. I see it as background. I guess other perspectives are needed.  :-) Tom Haws 15:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Emphasis in the lead should be relative to emphasis in the article. I think it is appropriate to say "Interpretations of the event vary among Latter Day Saint denominations" but it is not necessary or appropriate to go into detail about those variations in the lead, otherwise, the lead becomes the entire article. 74s181 12:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly! I strongly agree. Tom Haws 14:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, I think it is appropriate to say something about those who do not believe, and characterize their objections in a high level way, but it is not necessary or appropriate to go into detail about each objection / criticism. Perhaps if a majority objection could be identified it would be appropriate to say a little more about it. Maybe the 'evolution of emphasis' objection in the 2nd paragraph is the majority objection, in which case it needs more space in the article. 74s181 12:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"...challenged details...unnecessarily combative". If the people who 'offered' different views of the event approached it that way, that is, "I think it's wonderful that God has spoken to a prophet in modern times but I have a question about XYZ..." then 'offered' would be appropriate. But this is not how most of them approach the topic. Bushman and Quinn are both believers, both sympathetic, they believe that something important happened. John Foxe is not sympathetic, 'laughing' is probably an accurate description of how this group approaches the First Vision, as is 'patronizing', and even sometimes 'screaming'. They reject the First Vision in no uncertain terms. I think 'criticize' is a more accurate word but I can live with 'challenged'. When I first added this paragraph I intentionally structured it to be similar to the opening paragraph. Following is the way the third paragraph was originally written, see |here for the lead as I revised it about a week ago:
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...
I think that 'teach' is more accurate than 'offered', and less combative than 'challenged'. But John Foxe kept reverting it ([1], [2]) until you got involved, Tom Haws. Eventually it reached its present state, which I guess is more or less acceptable to John Foxe. I can live with the third paragraph as it is for now, but I would prefer 'teach'. I'm just afraid to touch it and set off another revert war, it could end up worse than it is. At least the lead as it is now acknowledges that there is a difference of opinion, and identifies the primary POVs, without attempting to assert 'the historical facts prove that the FV is false' as a conclusion. 74s181 12:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The second paragraph is still a problem, it asserts a POV as fact that I and I suspect most LDS disagree with, that is, the POV that the FV didn't 'become' an 'actual event' until later. 74s181 12:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I can support your proposed "teach that" passage. I also support the second paragraph. It is important background for the development of the LDS--the dominant--interpretation, and I don't see in it any intimation of the FV 'becoming' an event--merely its 'becoming' a doctrine, for lack of a better word. The second paragraph helps explain why interpretations vary: there was no standard interpretation in 1844. It reads like COgden to me. ??? Tom Haws 15:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I edited the lead and changed to the 'teach that' verbiage above. 74s181 03:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
...and John Foxe reverted, so I tried again. This time I used his preferred term, 'non-mormons' even though it is offensive to some LDS movement groups. 74s181 13:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
...and John Foxe reverted yet again 90 minutes later, if anyone cares. 74s181 01:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying about the second paragraph, but it still reads like a critical conclusion. I'm ok with it right up to "...Although the vision was not emphasized..." and I am really bothered by "...it had become a foundational element...". That is, I don't think that "was not emphasized" is an undisputed fact. What can we do about this? 74s181 03:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. That's a toughie. Could it be that the way the last sentence clinches the nail is what really sticks in your craw? I am reading everything up to there as possibly acceptable to you. What the last sentence seems to imply is that the FV "became an event". Perhaps if we could remove that implication you would feel better about it? John, do you have a suggestion? Tom Haws 18:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"Not emphasized", maybe that is as neutral as this can get. However, the First Vision was printed and distributed in England, was also printed in the Nauvoo paper before JS, Jr.'s death. I would feel better if the 'not emphasized' statement was reworded somehow as relative to the Book of Mormon, I think that would be more accurate. 74s181 01:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, "Today...teach...actual event", it was always taught as an actual event, perhaps just not as widely. And what is the explanation for separate antagonistic denominations independently deciding to start teaching the FV 50 years after JS, Jr.'s death?
I've changed "foundational" to "important" on the grounds that earlier doctrines, such as a heightened millenarian world view, were truly foundational, "present at creation." But that the FV wasn't emphasized during say, the first thirty years of the church seems pretty obvious. Certainly it wasn't emphasized before 1840, the first time the story was printed. After Joseph's assassination, many believers, even Lucy Mack Smith and Brigham Young, seem not to know anything about it.--John Foxe 19:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there a bit of a contradiction between "...had a clear motive for changing his story in 1838..." supposedly to increase his stature as a prophet, and "not emphasized" before 1840? 74s181 01:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Not really. A politician can have a clear motive for changing his story about past behavior, but that doesn't mean that that even his supporters will pick up on the change right away.--John Foxe 10:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but your argument is that he changed his story about past non-behavior. If JS, Jr. changed his story in 1838 to 'increase his stature', that means the story was emphasized before 1840. If it wasn't emphasized, then JS, Jr. wasted his time changing his story. In fact, I think I remember from an old version of the 'changed his story' paragraph that Grant Palmer said JS, Jr's stature did increase as a result of the changed (but mysteriously not emphasized) account of the First Vision. Maybe JS, Jr. used the 'faculty of Abrac' to change lead into gold, eh?<g> 74s181 02:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
But I digress. The point I'm trying to make is that 'not emphasized' is an opinion, a POV. It is a criticism of the FV, that is, if an event of such signficance wasn't emphasized, then it must not have really happened, but this interpretation raises more questions than it answers. Again, this paragraph is a particular criticism. 74s181 02:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Bottom Line

It appears to me that the article ends unacceptably. It's not appropriate for Wikipedia to appear to close the matter as though concluding that Smith's motives were evil in constructing his 1938 version of the event. I personally am not offended by it, but I just don't think it's appropriate and I don't think it will pass muster with the scores of LDS Church readers who happen by. I'm not sure what's the solution--how to end the article. Tom Haws 15:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Until a week or two ago, the "possible anachronisms" came after the 1838 version of the FV. Les moved them down to the end of the article. If he explained his rationale for the move, I missed it.John Foxe 17:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Would I be out of line to try a reorg of the section? Going so far, for example, as possibly even renaming it? Tom Haws 18:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I would love to see that section called something like "Reactions to the First Vision". -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 19:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The article used to end with the Gordon B. Hinckley quote, positioned in such a way that it radiated an implied stance that TCoJCoLdS was wrong. How? Well, FV is proved to be false, GBH says that TCoJCoLdS stands or falls on the FV, therefore, TCoJCoLdS is false. The article has improved some since then but still has a long way to go. 74s181 03:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, a 'How people have responded' section would be great, that way we have a place to put assertions of opinion, both pro and con. Hmmm, maybe something like this, or perhaps this, or if you don't like that, maybe this, or even this. Another approach would be this, or this. I'm not sure, I might have missed a couple of versions along the way, but bottom line, John Foxe won't allow a 'response' section that groups the belief and disbelief (I don't dare use the 'C' word) sections, we have attempted to address the objections JF has stated in the edit history comments of his reverts and deletions with no success. But, Tom Haws, you're more than welcome to take a shot at it, we've provided some examples of how it might be done and maybe John Foxe won't revert you like he did us.
BTW, I can't remember why I swapped the 'beliefs' and 'criticism' sections but there wsa reason. I'm not going to go wading back thru the talk page history to try to find it. Go ahead and make the change if you want, it doesn't really matter, John Foxe will revert, either now or later, after the 'grownups' leave. 74s181 03:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think moving the Mouw quote to the end of the article has solved this problem, anyone disagree? It's still ending on a critical note, but the statement "And so, I live with the mystery" takes the edge off. 74s181 10:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Attribution, or, IOW, "high-ranking-super-duper-mormon-history-expert-who-doesn't-believe-in-the-First-Vision John Doe wrote..."

I know that we have discussed this in the past, and I know that I said that we should name the person and state their qualifications. 74s181 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

However, I've learned a bit since then and I see that there can be a problem with qualification bloat. Look back at how the Grant Palmer quote at the end of the article used to read: 74s181 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Grant Palmer, a former paid LDS religious instructor and currently a disfellowshipped member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has noted... 74s181 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited this a couple days ago and removed all the extra verbiage, leaving 'Grant Palmer has noted..." I remember exactly how this came about, JF and I went back and forth on it several times 'qualifying' this expert. 74s181 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Now we have "...emeritus Brigham Young University history professor James B. Allen..." who John Foxe 'traded for' Fawn Brodie. Personally, I think that Fawn Brodie is a more appropriate source for this criticism, a) because she is better known (Fawn Brodie has a WP article, but James B. Allen, emeritus BYU etc. does not), b) Fawn Brodie was the expert originally cited for this criticism, and c) purely personal, John Foxe keeps deleting the Mouw quote.<g> 74s181 12:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand why attributing the criticism to a believer instead of a critic is more attractive to you, John Foxe. But it cuts both ways. If you're going to say "...emeritus Brigham Young University history professor..." then it is only fair to use just as much verbiage when something is attributed to a critic. You've insisted that you don't want to identify critics as critics, we've tried to go along with you on this, but now you're really throwing down the gauntlet. Is this what you want? 74s181 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I only described Allen when I found I couldn't link to him. (There's a musician James B. Allen with a Wiki bio.)--John Foxe 10:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That's fair, but why did you change from Brodie to Allen at all? 74s181 10:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Anachronisms section contains no anachronisms

Within the context of the First Vision article, an anachronism would be a criticism based on an error in temporal sequence, and would be a specific type of the more general 'contradictions' criticism. An example of this would be: 74s181 12:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

...his mother said that he regaled the family with "the most amusing recitals that could be imagined" about "the ancient inhabitants of this continent."
  • What makes this an anachronistic criticism is that JS, Jr. is supposedly sharing information from the Book of Mormon before he has translated any of it, therefore, he had to be making it up, therefore, he made up the Book of Mormon. However, this only works if the critic ignores JS, Jr.'s claim that at the time he was 'regaling the family' he was receiving instructions from Moroni, a historian from the Book of Mormon time period. Therefore, no anachronism, no contradiction.
  • This criticism is based on events that didn't occur until several years after any possible date for the FV, and so it is anachronistic in its use in the article as historical context of the FV. 74s181 12:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As I outline the criticisms, please remember that I don't agree with their conclusions, I'm leaving out the qualifiers for clarity. 74s181 12:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A list of the criticisms currently found in the 'anachronisms' section:

  • "...shared his vision with a Methodist minister..." = Lack of corroboration
  • "...it had never entered into his heart..." = Contradiction between accounts
  • "... indirectly mentioned the vision to his mother..." = Lack of corroboration
  • "...may have become involved with at least two Methodist churches..." = Character attack, i.e., contradiction between what JS, Jr. said and what he did.
  • "...practicing necromancer..." = Character attack.
  • "...had a clear motive for changing his story..." = Character attack.

John Foxe insists that the title "Possible anachronisms in accounts of the First Vision" be used as the introduction to what is actually a more general criticism section that doesn't even contain any anachronistic criticisms. Well, maybe one if you stretch it. 74s181 12:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe has resisted every effort to describe this section as criticism, often reverting with bogus comments. He insists that these statements are 'just facts'. He has also resisted every effort to place this section as an alternate POV to the 'beliefs' section, that is, as a subsection of a 'response' or 'reaction' section, often reverting. He insists that these 'historical facts' are not criticism and cannot be equated to 'Mormon apologetics'. 74s181 12:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

At least I agree with the final sentence, Les.--John Foxe 12:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Third paragraph of lede

The earlier wording is shorter, more accurate, and had been worked out over several edits as a compromise. Furthermore, we need to call a spade a spade. There's nothing wrong with the term "Non-Mormon." There is after all a Mormon Historical Association; it's not The Historical Association for Those Interested in the Study of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Smaller Denominations of the Restoration Movement.--John Foxe 12:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this before, the term 'Mormon' is associated primarily with TCoJCoLdS and to a lesser extent, other Rocky Mountain denominations. It is considered offensive by some Prairie saint groups. However, if it will keep you from reverting again I'll change it to 'Non-Mormon'. BTW, you could have made this change yourself instead of reverting the whole paragraph. 74s181 13:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Tom Haws, I should have let you make the change. Are you starting to get the picture? 74s181 13:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I was not only objecting to the euphemistic avoidance of the word "Mormon." I was concerned that the substitution was longer, less accurate, and overrode a compromise paragraph that had been hammered out over several edits. There's hardly a problem with saying that the details of the FV have been challenged by members of LDS churches when even the former assistant historian of the LDS Church says that he can't find any evidence that JS mentioned the FV to anyone (or was persecuted for doing so) for at least a decade.John Foxe 14:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, John Foxe, you hammered until everyone else gave up and you got your way.<g> 74s181 02:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
"...challenged by members...can't find any evidence that JS mentioned..." You're mixing arguments here. Details have been challenged, even by members, but this has nothing to do with whether or not the FV was mentioned to anyone before 1830. So, if I find a WP:RS reference that says it was mentioned before 1830 will you give up on this?
Is it okay to agree that it's not the "details of the FV" that are being "challenged" by such folks as the historian, but rather the canonical LDS Church interpretation? Tom Haws 17:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I did some editing. I don't mind being reverted. I'm ok with non-Mormon in this context, thought I agree that something like "non-adherent" might be more accurate and WP:NPOV compliant. Tom Haws 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
What you've done is fine, although there's still something odd about announcing that some don't believe the First Vision occurred. Isn't that true of any religious dogma? Would we write, "Some don't believe the Immaculate Conception occurred"?--John Foxe 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It didn't quite set well with me either. Perhaps that last sentence can go away? Tom Haws 21:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, since most of the article pushes the "JS, Jr. made it up" conclusion I think it makes sense to state this POV. John Foxe, you mentioned Immaculate Conception which says:
  • The doctrine is generally not shared by...
  • Protestants reject the doctrine because...
  • ...is rejected by most...
  • In arguing against this doctrine...
  • Protestants argue that...
  • A further argument put forward by...
  • Some Protestants also teach...
Let's be clear on this. Critics say that the FV never happened, they say that JS, Jr. made it up. Some members, even of TCoJCoLdS, question whether it happened exactly as described in the 1838 / JSH / PoGP account, but belief in JS, Jr. as the prophet God chose to restore His church, and belief that the current prophet also speaks God's word are 'foundational' in TCoJCoLdS. If you truly reject the FV you will probably reject other things as well, and may soon leave the church. If a member starts teaching that the FV didn't really happen they will probably be excommunicated if they are vocal and persistent in their criticism. 74s181 02:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So, what does this have to do with the lead?
Non-Mormons, and even some who are members of LDS churches, have challenged teachings about Smith's First Vision, citing differences between his accounts and a lack of corroboration by his contemporaries. Some question that the vision was a real event at all.
"Mormons" is not a generic term, there are 250,000 or so "non-Mormons" who believe in the FV, they are members of Community of Christ, Church of Christ (Temple Lot), etc. 74s181 03:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Not all "Non-Mormons" have challenged teachings about the First Vision, most people on earth are non-Mormons, and have never even heard of the First Vision. 74s181 03:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
"members" of TCoJCoLdS (Mormons) who "challenge" teachings about the FV won't be "members" for very long. 74s181 02:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Critics "cite differences between accounts and a lack of corroboration", even if members do this they are criticizing, that makes them critics. 74s181
Only critics "question that the vision was a real event at all". 74s181 02:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The treatment of members who are vocally critical of foundational church doctrines like the FV may seem harsh and autocratic to you, John Foxe. Maybe part of the difficulty is that you interpret the LDS movement as if it were a branch of Protestantism, when in many ways LDS are more culturally like Catholicism. That is, a top-down hierarchical structure where the Priest (or Bishop in the LDS church) tells the congregation the way it is, rather than the reverse found in many Protestant churches where the congregation elects a board that tells the pastor the way it is and fires him if he won't go along. 74s181 02:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that Quinn still self-identifies as LDS, but if his beliefs are as I've heard them described, I can't imagine why he would want to do so. 74s181 02:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
How about:
Some historians inside and outside of the Latter Day Saint movement have questioned official statements about Smith's First Vision. (BLANK)s teach that Smith exaggerated or even fabricated the event, citing evidence such as differences between his accounts and lack of corroboration by his contemporaries, along with concerns about his character and motivation. 74s181 03:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
(BLANK)s = ? I think 'critics' is the obvious choice, but I'm open to any factually accurate label for those who teach that the FV didn't happen. 74s181 03:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
John Foxe, I'm sure you'll find something to object to here. Please, please, state ALL your objections, don't hold them in reserve to dribble out later. 74s181 03:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
What I'd like is some variation on the theme already provided in the last section: "The only evidence for the First Vision is the testimony of Joseph Smith; and by definition, a description of one's private vision is susceptible to neither proof or disproof by another. Those who do not believe Smith's account have cited historical evidence surrounding his telling of the story, including possible anachronisms in his various accounts as well as a lack of corroboration by contemporaries." Such a statement would avoid "Mormons," "critics," and unprovable aspersions on Smith's character.--John Foxe 09:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's examine this sentence by sentence, word by word. 74s181 11:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The only evidence for the First Vision is the testimony of Joseph Smith; and by definition, a description of one's private vision is susceptible to neither proof or disproof by another.
a) This would be more accurate if 'evidence' were qualified in some way. I have evidence that satisfies me, over 200,000 people accept this evidence every year, it is just not evidence of a type that you will accept. This was ok when the statement was in the context of criticism but if you want it in the lead it will have to change. 74s181 11:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
b) Wikipedia is not about proof. Ok in the context of criticism but inappropriate when standing alone in the lead. 74s181 11:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
c) You always want to make things shorter, how about "...one's private vision is not susceptible to proof by (BLANK)", where (BLANK) is a qualifier related to the one I asked for in a). 74s181 11:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Those who do not believe Smith's account have cited historical evidence surrounding his telling of the story, including possible anachronisms in his various accounts as well as a lack of corroboration by contemporaries.
e) The majority of those who do not believe could care less about historical evidence. If they have an opinion about the FV they are more likely to be offended by contradictions with doctrines they have always believed or by "...they were all wrong...their creeds were an abomination in his sight...professors were all corrupt...they teach for doctrines the commandments of men..." than by 'historical facts'.
f) Most who "...do not believe..." and "...have cited historical evidence surrounding his telling of the story..." also cite character issues and quote Biblical scriptures to prove that the FV is false. A few criticize the FV without citing any "historical evidence", but this is rare in modern criticism, they have become too 'foxey' for that. 74s181 11:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
g) I have already shown that few if any of the criticisms in the anachronisms section can be classified as anachronisms, and I've also shown that some of the criticisms in the article are themselves anachronistic. 74s181 11:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If you wish, I am willing to go thru the entire article and classify each critical statement by type. I think I would find many more character attacks than anachronisms. 74s181 11:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt at the lead this evening. I didn't qualify the historians, they are 'just' historians. I used 'non-believers' as a euphamism for 'critics', also, used the verb 'teach', that's about as neutral as it gets. Hopefully that will be acceptable to JF. 74s181 02:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Eventually I'll come up with some references on criticsm based on differences in religious beliefs, then we'll have to figure out how to introduce it. 74s181 02:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs and Questions

How about 'questions' as a euphemism for 'criticism'? Seems pretty neutral. Also, 'beliefs' and 'questions' seem to work well together. 74s181 04:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I restored the 'response' section and reworked it a bit to work with the new beliefs / questions approach. I also restored the Jensen / Mouw quotes and then moved them to the end. I think this should address the concern over the highly negative way the article used to end that Tom Haws and others have expressed. Now the article ends with "It's a mystery". Seems appropriate to me. 74s181 04:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

While it may be true that there is little external evidence to support the First Vision, it is also true that there is little evidence to refute the claim, either. By definition, Mormons believe it happened, while non-Mormons don't. Most of the negative claims I've seen have either questioned Smith's character or interpreted his statements differently than (IMHO) most Mormons interpret them. It isn't that Mormons ignore the differences in the accounts, but rather they don't believe them significant, any more than the different accounts in the Bible of the same events.
I don't know how many of you have read the Church History volumes, but it became clear to me that Smith was fairly paranoid. My favorite example was when he was traveling and claimed that some men were following him. He couldn't see their faces, and they changed horses and clothes several times, but he was sure it was the same people. So it doesn't surprise me that he believed he was persecuted, even if there is no external evidence that this happened.
Also, most of us who have had spiritual experiences are often reluctant to talk about them too much, especially to those who might ridicule them. They are sacred memories that are shared selectively. Also, many of his family had what they believed were visions and revelations, and it is quite possible that he didn't think his was that different or notable. So the fact that Smith didn't discuss them that much isn't a surprise to me, especially if he met with such a negative reaction from his first telling.
Fortunately, we got rid of most of the excerpts from Anti-Mormon tracts, but many of those "anachronisms" were from interpreting Mormon scriptures differently than Mormons do (e.g., the lack of Priesthood, "all churches were wrong", etc.) While it is perfectly fine to interpret Mormon scriptures differently, it is not appropriate to claim that Mormons believe those alternative interpretations.
It is certainly a matter of faith, and when it comes to faith, logic has little to do with anything. There is no logic to God becoming a man, allowing them to kill him, and then coming back to life. And yet there are tons of people who believe just that, even though there is no "proof", there are conflicting accounts of what happened after the resurrection, etc. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 09:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
"...fairly paranoid" Sometimes people really are out to get you, they finally managed to get JS, Jr. LDS doctrine says that Satan was and is today highly focused on defeating JS, Jr. and the church he established. There really is a conspiracy, but most members of it are not even aware, would vehemently deny even the possibility of such a thing or else would insist that the LDS movement is the real Satanic conspiracy. 74s181 12:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to play Devil's advocate. It is easy for me to understand the critics concern about what Joseph said or did not say about this Vision. I find it difficult that he would ever think this vision was anything similar to the visions or revelations that any other person had. This would have been an extremely rare circumstance when God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him. I would think this had to be earth-shattering. I would suspect that the Smiths, including Joseph, that this expereince was rare indeed: Jesus' baptism (but that was only the voice of the Father proclaiming his Beloved Son), Stephen looking into heaven and seeing Jesus on the right hand side of God, the Father's introduction of Jesus in the Book of Mormon (which Joseph would have been unaware of at the time). Indeed, this was a unique experience.
I can understand keeping something this incredible to one's self, but when we review other visions, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Bernadette of Lourdes, and even Padre Pio to name just a few, these people talked about their visions. They may not have been explicit, but they were clear about who they saw.
The mind of a skeptic will naturally see a number of reasons why Joseph was not clear immediately and why a complete version was not written until 1838. On the other hand, those who believe find just as many reasons to believe. That is the experience of faith. --Storm Rider (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought the introductory section to "how it was understood" too filled with unprovable statements. How could one prove that people responded to the FV today as they did at the end of Smith's life? There's no proof that Smith ever talked with a Methodist minister after his vision, etc. So I shortened the passage to make it less Mormon in its point of view.
We need to draw a distinction between "belief" and historical evidence. I'm sure it's quite true that "Mormons ignore the differences in the accounts" and that logic has little to do with faith. What Smith saw in 1820 is forever unknowable. What he said about the experience years later, however, is not. It's therefore all the more incumbent on us to emphasize here the differences in Smith's contradictory accounts.--John Foxe 10:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I've restored some of the verbiage that John Foxe removed, merged in some of his phrasing and attempted to rework the intro to address some of his concerns. 74s181 12:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is correct to say that the section intro was "filled with unprovable statements". The 1832 account says JS, Jr. "could find none that would believe the hevnly vision". This statement corroborates the general reaction to the FV described in more detail in the 1838 account, but does not corroborate the 'Methodist minister'. However, the 1838 account is evidence, even if there is no other evidence. So, "There's no proof that Smith ever talked with a Methodist minister" is innacurate, it would be more correct to say "There's no evidence other than Smith's account". So I left out the 'Methodist minister', and restored the statement, framing it as one person's response. 74s181 12:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
But Wikipedia is not about proof, it is not even really about evidence. Wikipedia is about presenting all significant points of view.
  • That JS, Jr. shared the FV with a Methodist minister shortly after it occured is a POV held by many.
  • That JS, Jr. shared the vision with others who rejected it is a POV held by many.
  • That the First Vision can be proven false by historical evidence is a POV held by many.
  • That the First Vision is one of the most important events in the history of the earth is a POV held by many.
  • That the 'historical facts' arguments are more relevant than the 'belief' arguments is a POV held by John Foxe<g>, and also held by many.[citation needed]<g>
However, from the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View perspective, NONE of these POVs is any more or less 'fact' than the others, as long as they all can be verified in a reliable source. Also according to WP:NPOV, the only justification for giving preference to one POV over another is the number of people who believe it, and in case of dispute this also must be verifiable in a reliable source. The only exception to the need for verification in a reliable source is if a particular statement is not disputed. That many reject the FV today for similar reasons as those who rejected it in the past seems like an undisputed fact to me, but if you disagree, add a 'fact' tag and I'll look for a reference. 74s181 12:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even sure how you would go about proving that people in the early nineteenth century rejected Smith's vision for the same reason as moderns.--John Foxe 12:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is easy to 'prove', just quote criticms from that time period and match them up with similar criticisms today. However, to do this would be original research. It doesn't matter whether or not I can 'prove' this, WP:OR says I need to find a current expert who states this POV in a reliable source. That would take longer, but as long as you keep deleting this NPOV I don't have to do any research, all I have to do is restore it. 74s181 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
John Foxe, you've got the time zone advantage, I don't have time to edit what you've done and I don't want to revert, but I wanted to make some notes for later editing. 74s181 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 07:46, 31 August 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (76,403 bytes) (put quotation in footnote because there is no evidence that this event occurred)
There is as much evidence for the 1838 quote that JF buried in the footnotes as there is for the 1832 quote that he left in the body. 74s181 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Not mentioned in his edit comment is that he deleted the entire "Today, people respond..." paragraph. But he did post a comment on the talk page (see above, and my response). 74s181 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 07:48, 31 August 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (76,401 bytes) (→How people have responded to the First Vision -added to footnote)
JF moved the ref tag so that more text was moved to the footnotes. 74s181 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 07:50, 31 August 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (75,680 bytes) (→Questions about the First Vision - removed Jansen quotation)
Not only did JF remove the critical Jensen quote from the criticism section, he also removed the explanatory preface to the Mouw quote. 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 07:53, 31 August 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (76,279 bytes) (→The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -put Jensen quotation in earlier footnote)
JF placed the Jensen quote as a footnote to a Gordon B. Hinckley quote. 74s181 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Net effect of these edits: 74s181 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • JF reverted the intro of the 'response' section and did some minor tweaks to the wording afterwards. (added "in his own hand", changed "of the First Vision" to "of its occurrence", changed "wrote that" to "said") 74s181 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • JF deleted the explanatory preface to the 'differences' criticism. 74s181 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • JF moved the critical Jensen quote from the criticism section to a bogus footnote in the beliefs section with no explanation. (Bogus because the statement is by GBH, the only relationship between the GBH quote and the Jensen quote is that they were both presented on the same PBS program. 74s181 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I enjoyed learning what I did. I put the Jensen quote in the footnotes with GBH because they both represent the LDS Church. And my reason was not ideological but stylistic. I think Jensen's quote is impenetrable to most non-Mormons—they just wouldn't understand what he was talking about. In any case, rarely does anybody read block quotes. The Mouw quote is better, but as you say, it probably needs a sentence of preparation.--John Foxe 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I restored the deleted "Today, people respond" and "Some believe" sentences, but joined them into one sentence with a semicolon. I believe the result is a fully neutralized, undisputed fact: 74s181 00:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Today, people respond to the First Vision much as they did in Smith's time; some believe, many do not.
That is, today some people believe and some do not, just like they did in JS, Jr's time. Pretty hard to argue with. Also moved the 1838 account quote back to the body, but retained JF's edits, and made a couple minor changes of my own. 74s181 00:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I also restored the Jensen quote from the footnotes to the 'Questions' section, and the intro to the 'differences' paragraph. I also removed what I hope is the 'impenetrable' part of the Jensen quote, we'll see what JF does with this. 74s181 01:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical facts versus Mormon apologetics

If historical facts are to be challenged by Mormon apologetics, i.e. Jeff Lindsay, then these comments need to be labeled as apologetics.

People don't react to the First Vision today as they did in Joseph Smith's day because almost no one had heard of it in Smith's day; and those who did clearly didn't think it was very important. Smith's story about his discussion with the minister and his claim that he was persecuted for telling the FV story, has no independent documentation.--John Foxe 20:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I was waiting for you to explain why you reverted hours worth of edits in less than 30 minutes. And that's such a complete explanation that I'm just going to calmly agree with you. Well, first I'm going to count them up and see if you've got four reverts. 74s181 20:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

(WP:3RR notes moved to Talk:First_Vision#Preparation_for_WP:RfC_filing

John, I think you are overstating your position. Most had heard of the experience, but there was not a focus on the event. It would appear that the importance of that event has become progressively more important to LDS as time has past. What is historically apparent is that the early Latter Day Saint movement focused on the Book of Mormon; it was tangible and demanded attention by its mere presence. I can assure you that my conversations with ministers and priests in my youth could not be proven today, but that does not negate that they took place; you seem to put great stock when there is not evidence from 3rd parties for conversations that happened over 170 years ago. Is there any individual's history that has been that well documented? Just one, much less a boy living in the hinter lands of New York state. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty of written evidence about people's reaction to the Book of Mormon. If so many people knew about the First Vision, why is there not similar written evidence about reaction to it. You'd think that Smith claiming to see God in the flesh, a heretical doctrine in orthodox Christianity, would have aroused a storm of reaction from every corner.--John Foxe 18:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I restored the deleted section with some tweaks. John, if you objected to "as they did in Joseph Smith's day" you could have simply removed that phrase. The idea of collaboration is that you are supposed to work with people to arrive at a common solution. This is best done by tweaking what you find objectionable, rather than deleting anything you don't personally agree with. Remember, the opinions of experts on the topic are valid regardless of whether or not you agree with them. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 01:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Preparation for WP:RfC filing

Looks like five reverts in 30 minutes, so I've filed a WP:3RR report.

If nothing useful happens I'm ready to go to arbitration again, can anyone give me a good reason why I shouldn't? 74s181 22:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The WP:3RR was rejected. I knew it was a stretch, but I wanted to have it on record. I think I'm ready to try arbitration again, but I was looking at the WP:RFAR page and it sounds like I need to submit a WP:RFC/USER on John Foxe before I can submit a WP:RFAR. I looked at WP:RFC/USER, it says that two different users have to 'certify' the RfC within 48 hours. I'll do the research, but before I do I want to make sure that someone else is with me on this and will 'certify'. This time the complaint will be strictly behavior based.

protect a particular version
prevent certain POV
Examples (most recent first, oldest last):
Original edit diff / John Foxe 'undo' diff / net result diff
  • [3] / [4] / [5] Material previously deleted by John Fox restorated with additional edits attempting to address John Foxe's objections over about 4 hours by 74s181 / All edits except for a few rearrangements and one discarded by John Foxe in about 15 minutes
  • No edits by anyone for 3 days.
  • [6] / [7] / [8] Edits addressing John Foxe's objections, quotes restored to article by 74s181 / quotes moved to footnotes again by John Foxe.
  • [9] / [10] / [11] New section added by 74s181 / John Foxe moves the quotes in the footnotes.
  • [12] / [13] / [14] OR and NPOV tags added by 74s181 / removed by John Foxe.
  • [15] / [16] / [17] OR and NPOV tags added by 74s181 / removed by John Foxe.
  • [18] / [19] / [20] - wrp103 edited, restored material previously deleted by John Foxe / John Foxe deleted, performed additional edits.
  • [21] / [22] / [23] 74s181 added a quote and reference / John Foxe deleted, performed additional edits.
  • [24] / [25] / [26] - multiple edits by 74s181 / reverts and other edits by John Foxe.
  • [27] / [28] / [29] - deleted material restored by 74s181 / moved to footnotes by John Foxe.
  • [30] / [31] / [32] - 74s181 reworked 3rd paragraph of lead / reverted by John Foxe.
  • [33] / [34] / [35] - attribution added, other edits by 74s181 / attribution removed, other edits by John Foxe.
  • [36] / [37] / [38] - section header restored, other edits by wrp103 / removed, other edits by John Foxe.
  • [39] / [40] / [41] - section header restored by 74s181 / removed by John Foxe.
  • [42] / [43] / [44] - response section and intro restored by wrp103 / removed by John Foxe.
  • [45] / [46] / [47] - response section and intro restored and edited by 74s181 / deleted by John Foxe.
  • [48] / [49] / [50] - Character statement added to the lead by wrp103 / deleted by John Foxe.
  • [51] / [52] / [53] - response section and header restored and edited by 74s181 / deleted by John Foxe.

Enough for now. 74s181 05:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • inability or unwillingness to edit according WP:NPOV as evidenced by:
use of inappropriate WP:REVERT to prevent certain types of POV (see above)
talk page statements insisting on inclusion of only a particular type of POV
talk page statements rejecting basic WP:NPOV concepts
(note some duplication among examples due to same diff containing multiple problems)
Rejection of 'critics' or 'criticism' [54], [55], [56], [57]
Insists his 'historical facts' are not criticism: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]
Responds to attempts to explain WP:NPOV by calling it a 'Mormon smokescreen': [63]
Examples of rejection of 'character' POV: [64], [65], [66]

That's just the current talk page history, haven't started on the archive yet. 74s181 05:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So, can I get some support? 74s181 05:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Was the First Vision a divisive doctrine from the beginning?

We need some evidence that the FV was a divisive doctrine during Smith's lifetime. Is there any account of a non-believer refusing to join the Church because of the First Vision story during Smith's lifetime? Is there any account of a convert who was persuaded to join the Church on the basis of the First Vision story during Smith's lifetime?--John Foxe 18:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of this question? What do you hope to prove? Why are you here if you think that the FV is irrelevant? 74s181 23:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
During Smith's lifetime - JSH 1:21 "Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers..." This isn't 'proof', but you asked for evidence, and this is evidence. 74s181 23:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Today - any anti-LDS website. OIOW, why do the anti-LDS invest so much time and energy attempting to discredit the FV? Because they hope to convince investigators to not join the church because of the FV, or because they hope to convince members to leave the church because of the FV. 74s181 23:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe John's point - and I think it is valid - is that at one point, the article read something about reaction to the First Vision is much the same as today. In fact, there is little evidence that there was much of a reaction to the First Vision in the early days of the Church. I believe most people knew about the second vision with Moroni, and the first vision was overshadowed by it. Since Smith was best known from the Book of Mormon, and that was the result of the second vision, it is entirely possible that people joined the church because of the Book of Mormon, not because of the First Vision. Actually, it is pretty much the same thing today. I certainly wasn't converted by the story of the First Vision (although I know people who were); I was converted by reading the Book of Mormon.
It would not surprise me that the reason so many Anti-Mormon sites concentrate on the First Vision is to keep people from reading the Book of Mormon. It is much easier to ridicule Mormons if they haven't read the book. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 02:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I think we're in basic agreement about the lack of evidence for emphasis on the FV in Joseph Smith's lifetime. In my opinion, anti-Mormon sites concentrate on the First Vision for two reasons 1. it has so many difficulties for apologists to explain that don't ring true with even casual non-believers (For instance, Smith's memory of the vision has to improve as he gets older), and it's now a major cornerstone of the LDS faith. (In passing, I never cease to be surprised by people who testify that they've been converted by reading the Book of Mormon, an extended sample of awkward writing so grim that it tempts me to get out my editorial pen every time I open it.)--John Foxe 10:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this what we're arguing about? 74s181 12:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Today, people respond to the First Vision much as they did in Smith's time; some believe, many do not.

I thought the statement was clear and unambiguous. I agree that it would be difficult to 'prove' that anyone in JS, Jr.'s time was converted while hearing or reading the FV, but that isn't what the statement says, and I don't think that is why JF objects to it. 74s181 12:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

When I was designing digital electronic systems (back in the early the bronze age), I used references that provided 'truth tables' for various digital logic components, this made it much easier to understand how something more complex than an 'and' gate was going to react. So, here is the statement in 'truth table' form.

People's response to FV Today Smith's time
some 1 (believe) 1 (believe)
many 0 (not believe) 0 (not believe)

An expansion of the statement into individual assertions:

  • Some people respond to the FV today with belief.
  • Many people respond to the FV today with disbelief.
  • Some people responded to the FV in Smith's time with belief.
  • Many people responded to the FV in Smith's time with disbelief.

Are any of these arguable? Maybe. I originally wrote this statement as 'some believe, some do not', but changed it, hoping that 'many' would please John Foxe. That was a mistake, I think 'some' is more accurate for both belief and disbelief, anything other than 'some' is POV. I also think the statement could a bit more clear. So:

People respond to the First Vision today much as they did in Smith's time; some believe, some do not. 74s181 14:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus developing that the early church really did not teach the FV. This is false, and I can 'prove' it, at least as much as anything beyond the memory of any living person can be proven. 74s181 12:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a reference that proves that a summary of the FV was published in 1830. 74s181 12:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a reference that proves that the FV was taught continuously as a foundational doctrine of TCoJCoLdS from 1840 - 1877. 74s181 12:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a reference that proves that the FV was mentioned in non-LDS publications prior to 1843, and also proves that some writers of anti-LDS literature of that time were aware of the FV, had copies of the FV, but preferred not to mention it. 74s181 12:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

We're arguing over a simple statement of fact, like 'Mars is a planet'. The FV may not have been the divisive doctrine but it certain was and is a divisive doctrine. If we can't reach a compromise wording on something as simple as this then something or someone is seriously wrong. 74s181 12:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

We are indeed arguing about the statement "Today, people respond to the First Vision much as they did in Smith's time; some believe, many do not." The statement is clear and unambiguous enough. It's just false. Few Mormons knew of the First Vision in Smith's lifetime; and it was unimportant to many who did hear of it—including, most notably, Lucy Mack Smith and Brigham Young.
Mormon apologetic literature often cites obscure newspaper articles in an attempt to prove that the First Vision was being taught in the early Church, but the newspaper statements are never presented in context. In fact, there's not a single unambiguous reference to the First Vision in any of them. The newspaper articles simply reflect third-hand recollections of the Moroni vision plus the sort of errors to be found in a local weekly today.--John Foxe 14:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Good morning. I hope to not waste my entire day on this, but let me see if I understand you correctly. If something doesn't agree with your POV it is an 'obscure', 'out of context', 'ambiguous', 'third-hand' 'error', but if it does agree with your POV it is a 'historical fact', or, in other words, 'Truth'. Have I got that right? BTW, you certainly checked all those references quickly.<g> 74s181 14:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
All you have to do is provide such a citation in context and prove me wrong, Les.--John Foxe 15:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"...all you have to do..." Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. John Foxe, you have made it abundantly clear that your POV is The Truth. Your past behavior demonstrates that you will find some reason to delete any evidence that is contrary to your POV, that is why I didn't waste any time editing the article and adding any of these references. 74s181 20:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"Mormon apologetic literature often cites..." Even if it 'often' does, did you actually check all of the references in the various articles I cited before you labeled them 'obscure', 'out of context', 'ambiguous', and 'third-hand'? I doubt it. Maybe you are such an expert on the First Vision and you have such a good (photographic?) memory that all you have to do is see a reference and you can say, 'yes, I've looked at that one, it says blah blah blah, has nothing to do with the FV'. But that isn't what you said, therefore, my original 'proof' still stands. 74s181 20:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the experts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision#_note-Allen), the statement in question is inaccurate. Tom Haws 22:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What part of the statement is inaccurate? I looked at the Allen reference, in the begining it says "there is little if any evidence, however, that by the early 1830's Smith was telling the story in public" but later it says "in 1835 he was willing to tell the story to a visitor". Jeff Lindsay believes that D&C 20:5-6 (recorded in 1830 and published in 1831) contains a reference to the First Vision, I agree. This idea is explored in the article, see First_Vision#Possible_1830_allusion. Even without this, however, the First Vision was published and used in missionary tracts during JS, Jr.'s lifetime, obviously some people believed it and some people did not. I think the statement is accurate, I think it is an undisputed fact, but perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps it implies or suggests something disputed. How can it be changed so that it is an undisputed fact? 74s181 05:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
How about:
Today, people respond to the First Vision much as they did when it was first published; some believe, some do not.
Looks better. I don't see how anyone could argue with this. 74s181 05:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The statement is complete Mormon POV. Even if the FV was taught (late) in Smith's lifetime, that doesn't mean that people believed or rejected it in the same way they do today. Give an example of its acceptance or rejection—beyond, of course, the self-serving Smith quotation about the minister.--John Foxe 11:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Be honest, John Foxe, do you agree with these two statements? Applied to the time before JS, Jr. was martyred but after the FV began to be published in missionary tracts, or, today? 74s181 14:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Example of acceptance - some people joined / join the church after being taught by missionaries. Maybe not primarily because of the FV, but certainly some who joined / join the church were / are aware of it. 74s181 14:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Example of rejection - some people didn't / don't join the church after being taught by missionaries. Maybe not primarily because of the FV, but certainly some who decided / decide not to join the church were / are aware of it. 74s181 14:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Give one actual example of either of your hypotheticals. Think about all the published reaction there was to the Book of Mormon. Think of Hurlbut collecting his affidavits in 1833 with not a mention of the canonical First Vision. Why is there none? Smith speaking of seeing God with a body of flesh and bone should have caused an uproar.--John Foxe 18:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You said "removed uncited Mormon POV about reaction to FV", but in fact you're trying to push your own POV with this edit and your revert to the lead, the POV that no one heard anything about the FV until JS, Jr. made it up sometime in the late 1830's. Please tell me, when do your 'historical facts' tell you JS, Jr. made it up and started teaching it? That is, give me a date that I can rebut. 74s181 14:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
In my view, Joseph Smith created the canonical First Vision story in 1838 in order to bolster his leadership after the defection of many of the old timers such as Cowdery, Phelps and the Whitmers (in part because of the stories that were circulating about Smith's relationships with women). My guess is that the 1834 version was also created in an attempt to compensate for the Zion's Camp disaster. Of course, I have no proof that Joseph didn't tell others the canonical story earlier, but silence is not evidence for your position.
Even the response that Smith supposedly received from the Methodist minister is anachronistic. "The heavens are closed" would have been a suitable response of a minister to the vision of Moroni, but not to the First Vision. If a Methodist minister had heard the canonical First Vision story in 1820, he would have replied, "Son, 'No man hath seen God at any time.' 'God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship him in spirit and in truth.' What you've just said you saw is in direct disagreement with God's Holy Word. You must be deceived."--John Foxe 18:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
"...one actual example..." Did everyone who read "An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions..." join the church? Did everyone who read this tract decide NOT to join the church? 74s181 02:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
"...published reaction...Book of Mormon..." As has been said before, the Book of Mormon is a physical, tangible thing. It's a book. 500+ pages, multiple copies were likely present at the formal organization of the church in 1830. Eleven witnesses besides JS, Jr. said they saw the plates. Result? Thousands of pages have been written over the past 170+ years attempting to explain it away. Now let's take a look at the First Vision. An account of a vision, a couple of pages. One witness, an uneducated, fourteen year old farm boy. Not even published until 15-20 years after it occurred, 10 years after the formal organization of the church, and then only as 2-3 pages at the begining of a tract about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. 74s181 02:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
"...Hurlbut collecting his affidavits in 1833..." Hmmm, that's at least six years before the FV was even published, a year before Oliver Cowdery's confused 'account' which isn't even about the FV. 74s181 02:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it surprising that the enemies of JS, Jr., then and now, focused their efforts on the Book of Mormon, rather than the FV? Is it surprising that there is ample evidence of past criticism of the Book of Mormon over the past 170+ years, but that there is little if any criticism of the FV written before an account of the FV was even published? Because, John Foxe, that is what you are comparing. All criticism about the Book of Mormon, vs criticism about the FV written prior to its publication. Even if we broaden the window to 1838 - 1846, it would still be a miracle if the FV got enough attention from anti-Mormon writers that any of their publications would have survived. 74s181 02:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that I have read thru "An Interesting Account", I want to offer another view. John Foxe, you want the lead to say that "...the vision was not emphasized during Smith's lifetime..." It is clear that the FV was in fact taught, but perhaps only as an element of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. That is, perhaps it was not taught as a separate doctrine, important in and of itself as it is today. I can see that perhaps this is what you have been trying to say all along. If so, maybe we can work out some language that clearly states this, without making it look like hardly anyone had even heard of the FV prior to the nineteenth century, which is what the lead currently says. 74s181 02:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no unambiguous evidence that the canonical First Vision story was ever taught before Joseph Smith created it in 1838. Even after that date it was hardly known until after Joseph Smith's death. It didn't become an important doctrine in the LDS Church until late in the nineteenth century, after the death of Brigham Young, who seems to had been virtually unaware of it.--John Foxe 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Your POV, John Foxe, and certainly a valid one that belongs in the article. But my POV, and the POV of 14 million LDS is a bit different. 74s181 22:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have re-added the 'People respond...' sentence, with changes. I think the latest attempt should satisfy all objections, but I've thought that before. 74s181 14:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasting time

Evidence shows that the basic outline of events depicted in all accounts of the FV written by JS, Jr. was present from the foundation of the church. See D&C 20:5-12:

  • (5) manifestation, AKA First Vision or grove experience
  • (5) relapse into sin
  • (6) repentance
  • (6) appearance of an angel (Moroni)
  • (8) translation of the Book of Mormon

This seriously undermines, perhaps even disproves the fundamental POV of the article; the assertion that JS,Jr. fabricated the FV sometime after the organization of the church. Of course, WP is not about 'proof', it is about:

...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.

So we have to include the criticism even though we can 'prove' it is all false. But John Foxe won't allow even the acknowledgement that there is such a thing as criticism. That is wrong, John Foxe is wrong. 74s181 13:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be a waste of time for anyone to edit the article for any reason until this problem is resolved, including fixing punctuation, spelling, grammar, etc., because once the problem is resolved, the article will have to be rewritten from begining to end to comply with WP:NPOV. After that is done it will be time to work on punctuation, grammar, spelling, etc. 74s181 13:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what to do. The temptation to descend to JF's level and just start reverting his reverts is strong. I was going to submit another arbitration request, but it all seems like a waste of time. 74s181 13:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Original Research / NPOV dispute - entire article

We've been arguing about this for months, I thought it was past time to properly tag the article. I tried tagging a section as WP:OR a couple of days ago, but John Foxe deleted the tag. 74s181 21:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm supposed to add a specific note to the talk page describing the specific issues. There are many examples in the article, and when I get time I'll start making a list, but here are some general observations. 74s181 21:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem with [of tone], caused by unidentified and unattributed criticism. This occurs when two otherwise undisputed facts are placed together to imply a conclusion. Such a placement is a violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Such statements are original research because they are not attributed, they are not neutral because they are not identified as criticism. 74s181 21:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Add the list first, Les, then tag.--John Foxe 22:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here are a few. In some (not all) cases I have highlighted the part that makes it NPOV or OR. 74s181 00:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • OR, NPOV Although the vision was not emphasized during Smith's lifetime, by the end of the nineteenth century it had become an important element of the faith.
  • OR, NPOV Nevertheless, Smith makes it clear that the revival to which he referred was interdenominational.
  • OR What Joseph Smith said he saw during the first vision may be reconstructed from the several accounts... (entire section)
  • OR, NPOV Smith said he told others about the vision during the 1820s, and some family members said that they had heard him mention it, but none prior to 1823, when Smith said he had his second vision.
  • OR, NPOV 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," but Lucy did not mention this conversation in her memoirs, produced with Martha Jane Knowlton Coray in 1844-45.
  • OR, NPOV The importance of the First Vision within the Latter Day Saint movement evolved over time.
  • NPOV Taylor's comments on the First Vision shift from emphasizing angels to God the Father and Jesus Christ.
  • NPOV The reference to "remission of sins" might allude to the First Vision, although that phrase is recorded in other revelations by Smith and although the account does not mention Jesus, God the Father, or the corruption of all contemporary churches.
  • OR, NPOV This account more likely reflects the visit of Moroni...
  • NPOV, OR The earliest account of the First Vision was written in 1832...
  • NPOV, OR Unlike later accounts of the vision, the emphasis of the 1832 account is on the young Joseph's quest for personal forgiveness.
  • NPOV, OR The account does not mention an appearance of God the Father, nor does it mention the phrase "This is my beloved Son, hear him."
  • OR In several issues of the LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate (1834-35),[101] Oliver Cowdery wrote an early biography of Joseph Smith, Jr., apparently with Smith's assistance.
  • NPOV, OR Thus, Cowdery's account, containing a single vision, differs from Smith's 1832 account, which contains two separate visions, one in 1821 prompted by religious confusion (the First Vision) and a separate one regarding the plates on September 22, 1822. Cowdery's account also differs from Smith's 1838 account, which includes a First Vision in 1820 and a second vision on September 22, 1823.
  • NPOV, OR Jesus is identified as the Son of God, but neither "personage" is identified with Him.
  • NPOV, OR Pratt's account referred to "two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in their features or likeness", but did not identify them as angels or as God and Jesus, or otherwise.
  • NPOV, OR In language paralleling that used two years earlier by Orson Pratt
  • NPOV, OR Smith said he "saw two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features, and likeness, surrounded with a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noon-day", but Smith did not identify the personages or note whether they were angels or dieties.
  • NPOV, OR William's account describes the visit of an angel, and neither of William's accounts makes a distinction between the First Vision and the vision of Moroni Smith said he experienced three and a half years later.
  • OR According to Smith, he indirectly mentioned the vision to his mother shortly after it occurred.
  • OR, NPOV In her several recollections of the events that led to the founding of the LDS Church, there is no extant record that Lucy Mack Smith ever mentioned Joseph having had a vision before his bedroom visitation from Moroni in 1823.

Now I'm going to restore the tags. You know that removing tags like these is a no-no, right? 74s181 00:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OR tag on "Questions" section

Independent of 74, I tagged the Questions section as OR for a number of reasons. I tagged some of the places where citations are needed.

The opening paragraph of that section has no citations, and a number of the "anachronisms" is OR since no expert is cited for having noted the differences.

I will continue on that section, but noticed that 74 was also starting down that path, so I thought I should let people know what is going on before we start tripping over each other. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 00:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Continuing OR/synthesis comments:
  • As mentioned above, the opening paragraph is OR
  • "As Smith continued to tell the story, ..." - there is no evidence that Smith told the story more than once.
  • For the same paragraph, there is no expert claiming there is a difference between "there was no society or denomination that built upon the Gospel of Christ" and "it had never entered into his heart that all churches were wrong". The first quote states that Smith hadn't found any organization that was built on the Gospel of Christ; the second statement says he didn't realize that there wasn't any such organization. (Just because I haven't found an answer doesn't mean that I believe there is no answer.)
  • "According to Smith, he indirectly mentioned" - again, OR - no expert pointing out that this is a problem. As mentioned several times in the article, the emphasis was on the second vision, not the first vision. It makes perfect sense that LMS would concentrate on those events that were of interest to most people.
  • "Joseph Smith may have become involved ..." - again OR - placing facts in a sequence to imply a conclusion. No expert is cited as having come to that conclusion.
  • "Grant Palmer has noted that Joseph Smith had a clear motive ..." - this is a perfectly valid paragraph for this question, since an expert is identified for having raised this point.
  • "Some have questioned the First Vision because of perceived differences ..." - OR - need a citation from an expert making this claim.
In many of the above cases, I believe that citations can be found. I have seen a number of the claims on anti-Mormon tracts, but most of those don't cite any "expert."
Until the above issues are resolved, I believe that the tags should remain. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 00:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. We'll work through these, and I won't contest the tags.--John Foxe 13:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

1830 allusion

Bill, the 1830 allusion (also D&C 20:5-12) contains the same outline as subsequent accounts, including the 1838 account, mentioning both the FV and the visit by Moroni. The 1830 account barely mentions the FV, but the manifestation in v5 is the FV, the holy angel in v6 is Moroni. 74s181 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The statement "Since none of Smith's accounts of the first vision mention translating a book, this account more likely reflects the visit of Moroni from whom Smith claimed to have received the golden plates" isn't quite right, the 1832, 1835, and 1838 accounts all mention both the First Vision in the grove and the visitation by an angel (Moroni) in Joseph's bedroom. 74s181 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think my edit is wrong, then I have no problem if you remove or correct it. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 01:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oliver Cowdery account

Why is this account included? It has the same problems with accuracy as the other second hand accounts. Even if a reference can be found for "apparently with Smith's assistance", if JS, Jr. didn't proofread it before it was printed then this must be considered a second hand account. It seems to me like the only reason it is present is to try to prove that Oliver Cowdery didn't know about the 1820 FV, but when you read the actual references it looks to me like an installment was left out. Otherwise, the only possible interpretation is that Oliver Cowdery got the date right at first, then got it wrong, or else he 'mistakenly' gave the date that JS, Jr. would later allegedly 'make up', then he 'corrected' himself. 74s181 02:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In any event, if this account is good for the article, then maybe we should include some of the other second hand accounts, like maybe those that say JS, Jr. told someone about the FV before 1830. 74s181 02:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith figured out that Cowdery's version if left "uncorrected" would cause chronological problems down the line, so a typographical error was discovered—which in the end didn't do the job either. As for Cowdery's writing up an account independent of Joseph, that's just wishful thinking. ("Whether a Supreme Being did exist?"—where did that come from if not from Joseph?)--John Foxe 13:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So, John Foxe, are you agreeing that "...maybe we should include some of the other second hand accounts, like maybe those that say JS, Jr. told someone about the FV before 1830"? 74s181 13:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm denying that it's truly a second-hand account. If Smith got the year corrected, he could also have had anything else corrected in "Cowdery's" account that he didn't approve of.--John Foxe 19:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, he did. That was the point of the 1838 account. Sorry - i haven't been following this dicussion, but just read the above. The stated point of Smith's 1838 account was to correct past errors (such as cowdery's) and set it forth correctly, with updated documents and information that he had to correct past date descrepancies? He says that in the introduction of the T&S account: "I have been induced to write this history, to disabuse the public mind, and put all inquirers after truth in possession of the facts, as they have transpired, in relation both to myself and the Church, so far as I have such facts in my possession." talk 21:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a possible interpretation; but it assumes that Smith corrected Cowdery's date yet was uninterested modifying anything else for almost four years.--John Foxe 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I seem to remember smith criticizing cowdery for his 1834 account in church publications. I'll check, but I think is much more than just another possible interpretation... -Visorstuff 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The change of date can only have come from Joseph. He's the only one who knew. Why would he be so careful to have the date revised without touching more substantive matters, including the implication that he didn't know whether God existed? As for the possibility that Smith criticized Cowdery's account, it's like Talleyrand's definition of treason—it's all a matter of dates.--John Foxe 10:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I read Oliver Cowdery's account again. It does not say that the correction of date came from JS, Jr. It says:
"...but as there are, in a great house, many vessels, so in the history of a work of this magnitude, many items which would be interesting to those who follow, are forgotten. In fact, I deem every manifestation of the Holy Spirit, dictating the hearts of the saints in the way of righteousness, to be of importance,, and this is one reason why I plead an apology."
So, perhaps Oliver is saying that the 1820 First Vision is one of the vessels, it would be interesting, it is important, so he apologizes that he is now going to skip over it. Here's a different theory. Perhaps JS, Jr. spoke to Oliver Cowdery and said something like this:
Joseph: "I wish you would have spoken with me before you started telling the story of the vision I had of the Father and the Son when I was a young man. At the time I also thought it was something people ought to know about, but when I tried to share it with others, they mocked and ridiculed the experience. That experience is very sacred to me, and I was deeply offended that it should be so treated. I shared it with you as I have shared it with a few others because I knew you would accept it with gladness. However, it is a very personal and sacred to me. I just don't feel comfortable about 'casting pearls before swine', so for now, I'd rather not publish this vision to the world."
Oliver: "Yes, it is very sacred, I remember how I felt the first time you shared it with me, and I've seen the kinds of things people are writing about the Book of Mormon. I'm very sorry, I should have checked with your first. But the paper has gone out, what shall we do?"
Smith: "Yes, it has gone out. How about this. In your next installment you could say you made a mistake, that's true enough, Reverend Lane didn't start preaching in the area until several years later, during another revival. So, just say that you are correcting yourself about my age, and continue your narrative with the appearance of Moroni."
This is speculation, but so is any other theory about why Cowdery shifted gears in the next installment. Of course, maybe someone has a statement from Oliver or Joseph about why he corrected himself in midstream, if so, I'm going to feel pretty foolish. But that seems to be one of my assignments in life. To feel foolish, that is. So, John Foxe, do you have any evidence, or, does anyone else, that 'proves' Oliver changed the dates because Joseph told him to? 74s181 12:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
My theory is that Joseph told Cowdery exactly what to write (including Smith's questioning of God's existence—which is almost certainly true), and then Smith realized that the chronology might be a problem, and a typographical error was discovered. Smith must have corrected the date because Cowdery would not have had any first-hand knowledge about when Smith's vision had occurred. If Smith had wanted to correct the record, he might written an article under his own name and said, "Brother Cowdery repeated a sacred story that he has heard me tell many times. Unfortunately the details as given in the last issue are not quite correct and at the appropriate time, I will declare a true account to the brethren." Or he might have provided the 1838 account four years earlier than he did. But Smith did nothing. He allowed Cowdery's account to stand as his own.--John Foxe 14:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting theory, but I ask again, John Foxe, what is your evidence that Oliver changed the dates because Joseph told him to? 74s181 05:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Only a one pretty major issue with that - Smith was on Zion's camp march at the time this was written, wasn't he? It is very possible that Smith only heard and never had a chance to read the account. And why would Cowdery need to get that sort of approval when he had just been ordained associate president of the church? We are all making assumptions here - the facts are that Cowdery wrote the paper, and it was corrected and "set forth" properly by smith in 1838 (and journal records suggests he began writing the account as early as 1836). Smith did nothing because he wasn't around. That is why Cowdery printed it rather than smith. A more likely scenario was this: Smith said, "Oliver, I'm heading on Zion's camp - can you write a brief history based on the histories and docments you have while I'm gone - it is important for people to know what happenend." Oliver said, "sure." Joseph said, "Thanks, I just don't have the time being prophet and all - delivering at least one revelation a month to these folks, preparing "lectures on faith" with Sidney to roll out next month, and getting ready to roll out the 12 apostles, seventy and all that stuff. I'll try to review it when I get back." And then he never did. At worst, Smith's absense of publishing in the M&A for a few months should be telling that he may no have followed the situation that closely, don't you think? -Visorstuff 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Zion's Camp expedition was in the summer of 1834. Smith arrived back in Kirtland on August 1. The article was printed in December.--John Foxe 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalist affirmation

The quotations at the end of the section on the beliefs of Mormon Fundamentalism are meaningless in the context of the First Vision. In fact, the whole section should be eliminated unless better evidence can be provided. At this point, the paragraph says in effect, "Mormon Fundamentalists believe in plural marriage. We don't have a clue what they believe about the First Vision specifically." Besides, putting these quotations near the end emphasizes the connection between Mormonism and plural marriage. I have acquaintances who think that members of the LDS Church still practice polygamy.--John Foxe 21:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A week or so ago in the Talk:First_Vision#Facts_needed section, Tom Haws said we needed info on FLDS. I was looking at something else and happened across the website I cited, and thought it might serve as a reference for what Mormon Fundamentalists think about the FV. 74s181 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I just worked on it a bit, trying to deal with John Foxe's concerns about plural marriage. I tried to clarify the distinction between 'Mormon Fundamentalists' and TCoJCoLdS, possibly a bit too much. 74s181 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The whole thing is a bit of a stretch, maybe OR, but I thought if I added it, maybe someone who knew something more specific would see it and fix it. I'm ok if someone wants to tag it as WP:OR and delete it in a couple weeks or so if it doesn't improve. 74s181 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
However, as long as the 'fundamentalist' section is there, I think the two paragraphs of the quote should remain. They are at least as relevant to the FV as the 'abrac' quote, that is, they are a positive affirmation of JS, Jr's character, while the 'abrac' quote is an attempt to portray Smith and his family as a bunch of heathen wizards, IOW, a character attack. 74s181 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There's certainly no problem about delineating how Mormon fundamentalists view the First Vision: What are they? But I fail to see how testimonies to Joseph Smith's sterling character by child molesters who deliberately reject the teachings of the LDS Church provide a "positive affirmation."--John Foxe 10:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
They affirm the First Vision, albeit indrectly, but I agree, it is certainly ironic. John Foxe, you probably do the best you can to live according to the teachings of the Savior as you understand them, and as part of that you criticize Joseph Smith, Jr., while convicted child molesters praise him."Wake up the world for the conflict of justice" is still true. 74s181 13:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I would consider their approbation appropriate rather than ironic.--John Foxe 14:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course you would, John Foxe. But, "Death cannot conquer the hero again". 74s181 00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better to delete the 'fundamentalist' section for now. Does anyone else have an opinion? 74s181 13:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we are making progress after all?

Edit by John Foxe! 07:50, 5 September 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (83,318 bytes) (→Questions about the First Vision -some strengthening of the "critical" position-if we have to use that word, let's do it with gusto)

"The only evidence for the First Vision are the accounts by Joseph Smith and his followers. Critics claim that there are serious discrepancies between the various accounts, as well as anachronisms revealed by lack of contemporary corroboration. Apologists argue that such claims are overstated."

74s181 13:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A thought

I have not edited on this page much and I do not know that I have much to add having not really explored this matter deeply. But it occurs to me that there were differences in Saul/Paul's epiphany story and perhaps in others, like J Smith. Maybe the evolution or increased revelation is a theme in such epiphanies. On the other hand, what about Bahá'u'lláh? Did his epiphany change over time? I think it did. I can sort of related. Once I saw what I can only describe as a spirit or ghost entity. The experience was so odd (disturbing actually), that I reflected on it time and time again, and as -- what I would call my "insight" into the matter increased -- I would think that my relating of the events might also change. Maybe these kinds of epiphanies work that way. Or maybe Smith and Saul lied. Or maybe something else.

As an aside, in that experience of seeing a spirit, one other person was with me and could testify to it. However, in later years that person became mentally ill and so would not be considered a credible witness. Thus, I am left alone with this thing I saw. I never actually tell anyone about this in real life because people might have doubts about me in other ways. Kinda funny when I think about it. Once I had a dream about meeting God and the sensation of the intensity of the power He personally represented or controlled was overwhelming and I was immediately frightened. This is also something I do not talk about.

But perhaps what Smith saw was something he was reluctant to talk about initially and then thought about repeatedly afterward.--Blue Tie 20:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a word about the supposed differences in Paul's story of his vision on the road to Damascus, an oft-repeated LDS red herring: there's no conflict between the three accounts in Acts so long as you read Acts 22: 9 in any version other than the KJV. For instance, in the New American Standard Bible and the New International version, Acts says that Paul's companions did not "understand the voice"—that is hear what was uttered with understanding. Although I don't know any Greek myself, koine Greek apparently makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative.) In other words, you have the same Greek word but in a different case: "phones" in Acts 9:7 and "phonen" in Acts 22:9. There's a parallel between what Paul's companions saw and what they heard. They saw only saw a blazing light, but they did not see the Person.--John Foxe 20:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not know about an oft-repeated LDS red-herring. I was referring to things that I have read for myself -- and I have never heard an LDS argument on this matter nor have I ever discussed with an LDS person.
Its been a few years, but I looked at it in several English versions and also in the greek and I do not come to the same conclusion that you do. As I recall, there were absolute discrepancies. I would have to look at it again to remember what they were.
But this gets to a related area: The idea that somehow a religious text must be inerrant to be correct. It appears to be the reason why both Christians and Mormons seem bent beyond reason to justify things like this. Catholics do not generally have this problem and its one of the things I like about them, though a few of them are infected by that same disease.
The point of my comment was that it may be ok for there to be changes over time. It happened in the Bible and it happened in other religions. So maybe it is the way such things happen. If there is a God then maybe that's how He works. If there is not, then maybe that is how the mind of man works in creating Him. Or maybe something else in the middle. --Blue Tie 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I had never brought up Paul in this context, my response has always been the accounts of the empty tomb. Which Mary? Alone, or with others? One angel or two? Inside, or outside the tomb? Did Jesus first appear to Mary alone, or to the disciples in the upper room, or to disciples on the road? These variations can't be explained away by nuances of the 'original' Greek. The only explanation is that the infallible Bible is, in fact, not perfect, this is an article of faith for LDS (8th), but I think it presents a problem for Sola Scriptura Protestants. 74s181 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If this were a blog rather than a talk page about Joseph Smith's First Vision, I'd be happy to take on all comers in regard to Paul visions, the resurrection accounts, and any other stabs at the Bible you think might let Joseph Smith off the hook. But I'll satisfy myself simply by providing links to LDS apologetic sites that specifically compare accounts of Paul's vision to Joseph Smith's, for instance, Meridian Magazine and Fairwiki First Vision Accounts. I'll just quote FARMS: "There are fewer differences between the various accounts of Joseph Smith's first vision than between the five different accounts of the apostle Paul's first vision and his trip to Damascus (Acts 9:1-30; 22:5-21; 26:12-20; Galatians 1:11-24; and 2 Corinthians 11:32-33) or in the various accounts of Christ's resurrection found in the four gospels. (For example, did the men with Paul hear the voice but see no man, as in Acts 9:7, or did they see the light but not hear the voice, as in Acts 22:9?)"--John Foxe 01:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll admit, the 'Sola Scriptura' comment was a jab. But what I was mainly saying is if someone wants to do a comparison in the article between the accounts of the First Vision and something in the Bible, my opinion is that the differences between the resurrection accounts are far greater and much more difficult to gloss over than the differences between the 'Road to Damascus' accounts. 74s181 03:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that's right, I forgot. You, John Foxe, in your role as official owner of this article have already ruled out any discussion of the 'Road to Damascus' comparison. Right? 74s181 03:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The comparison would be irrelevant. If a cop pulls you over for speeding, you won't get anywhere by gesturing toward the road and saying, "But, officer, look at all those other speeders." All you've done is admit that you knew you were speeding.--John Foxe 14:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
A major POV in the article is: "The accounts contradict each other, therefore, the FV is a fabrication." The response is: "The Bible contains similar contradictions, yet many people believe in it, therefore, the FV is as plausible as the Bible." Therefore, the comparison is relevant. 74s181 01:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The comparison is irrelevant. The vast majority of the world's population do not believe in the Bible. The number of Bible-believers is probably at least equaled by the number of people who believe in astrology and space aliens.--John Foxe 19:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Plausibility, John Foxe. According to Wp:npov#Fairness_of_tone:
We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views impartially.
So, many people believe the resurrection to be true, the Biblical accounts of the resurrection contain contradictions similar to or greater than those in the accounts of the First Vision, therefore, the First Vision is at least as plausible as the resurrection. Doesn't 'prove' that the FV did or did not happen, just proves that it's plausible. Of course, it would still need a reference, but I'm not trying to add this particular POV to the article right now. 74s181 01:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It's irrelevant. It's like comparing the purported affair of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings with the purported affair of William Jefferson Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Believing or not believing in one does not, and should not, have any relation to belief or non-belief in the other. Furthermore, you assume that readers will be Christians, which is both discriminatory and probably incorrect. ("I'm not trying to add this particular POV to the article right now." Ah, pardon, your agenda is showing.)--John Foxe 18:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
"It's like comparing..." I don't feel comfortable posting what I think of your comparison. And I don't mean Jefferson and Clinton. Let me just say again that it isn't about convincing, it is about plausibility. 74s181 02:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
"assume... readers... Christians... discriminatory... incorrect." Perhaps I do assume that most people who are curious about the FV are probably Christians. But the point is plausibility, if hundreds of millions of people can believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ in spite of the contradictions in the accounts of that event, then it isn't so unusual that 14 million people believe in the First Vision in spite of the contradictions in accounts of that event. 74s181 02:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
You'd have to prove that "hundreds of millions" of Christians believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ, that there are contradictions in the event as recorded in the four gospels (not as easy to do as you think), and that most believers in the literal Resurrection know enough about the Bible to realize that there are differences in the accounts. None of this is relevant to the First Vision story. Like I said, there are probably as many people in the world to whom astrology and the existence of space aliens are more plausible than Christianity.--John Foxe 10:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
"You'd have to prove...believe in the literal resurrection...most believers... know enough about the Bible...", no, I'd only have to find an expert who says a) belief in the literal resurrection of Jesus is part of the definition of 'Christian', b) belief in Biblical inerrancy is part of the definition of 'Christian', and c) there are X hundred million Christians. Do you really think that no one has ever said these things? 74s181 01:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
They may have said them, but they'd be dead wrong. If you check churches with membership in the World Council of Churches, you'd have to search diligently to find any "Christians" who believed in the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus. Ditto on biblical inerrancy.--John Foxe 02:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"...they'd be dead wrong..." This is Wikipedia. Your disagreement with the accuracy of something said in a reliable source shouldn't prevent it from being used in the article, unfortunately, your ownership behavior keeps valid material like this out of the article. You keep using variants of the word "prove", the only thing that needs to be 'proven' is that an expert said it in a reliable source. Obviously you are unable or unwilling to understand and comply with these simple WP concepts and policies, and that is a big part of the problem. 74s181 12:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"...contradictions in the event..." There are several useful references in the Jesus: Empty tomb article. 74s181 01:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
But as I said, right now it would be a waste of time to try to add these facts to the article. 74s181 01:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"...right now...your agenda is showing..." Sorry, you've completely misunderstood. 'right now' means, I'm having a hard enough time fighting to neutralize the existing negative POV, why would I waste any time trying to add something that I already know you'll delete, delete, delete, delete, ad infinitum. 74s181 02:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Right now. But if you could just eliminate that pesky John Foxe, think of the possibilities for inserting Mormon POV into this article.--John Foxe 02:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"But if you could just eliminate that pesky John Foxe, think of the possibilities for inserting Mormon POV into this article". Ding, ding, ding ... we have a winner! John, if you would just bow out then this article would probably be suitable for an LDS training tool. ... :) 04:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke53 (talk • contribs)
(<--unindent) 74s181 11:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"But if you could just eliminate..." This is not my primary goal, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/John_Foxe#Desired_outcome and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/John_Foxe. I just want John Foxe to stop deleting / reverting and follow the same rules as everyone else. Duke53, the First Vision article isn't like some of the other articles you watch. In this article, 'Mormons' aren't continuously doing drive-by deletes that you and others properly revert. No, what's happening here is that 'Mormons' and others edit in good faith, attempting to fix the WP:NPOV problems in this article, then John Foxe treats these edits as if they were drive-by vandalism. 74s181 11:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "elimination" is a bit strong, Danites being out of fashion these days. But why did you say that lessening the influence of John Foxe was not your "primary goal"? Is it a secondary goal, perhaps?--John Foxe 19:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Reduce your 'influence'? I said that I value your contributions. What I want is to reduce your control. You have stolen this article from its rightful owners. Not the 'Mormons', but the Wikipedia community. In this respect, WP isn't that different from the real world. There are a lot of things laying around that can be easily stolen. A small minority choose to take what they want by force, both in the real world and here on Wikipedia. Some get away with it for a long time, but those who persist in this kind of behavior are eventually stopped, especially those who flaunt their bad behavior. 74s181 04:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to silence you, John Foxe. I just want you to stop deleting / reverting everything that you don't like, and start editing. I want you to acknowledge that within the WP context, your POV is, in fact, a POV, not 'TRUTH'. I have done this. Other LDS editors have done it. So can you. Our hands are stretched out still. 74s181 04:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am confused by this rather long exchange and the ending makes no sense what so ever. How can one deny the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ and then make the claim that one would be hard pressed to prove the WCC believes in such? Just read the bloody site! Pay particularly close attention to the following:

Christ's resurrection, basis of our common faith
5. The apostolic faith of the Church is based on the reality of the resurrection of Christ.

I don't really know what this has to do with the topic at hand, but the statement is so outrageous I wonder if Foxe has a clue about orthodoxy?!? Protestants are the minority and orthodoxy is the vast majority and they believe firmly in the literal reality of the resurrection. If you need more references, please just visit any Catholic or Easter Orthodox web site. This is fundamental Christianity! --Storm Rider (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of affirming the Resurrection in this WCC piece is to give liberal Protestants a better chance of achieving ecumenical unity with Orthodox churches. If WCC Protestants flatly denied the Resurrection, they wouldn't stand a chance. I'd bet that if you tracked down the writings of the Protestants on this commission, you'd discover that not a single one believed in the literal resurrection of Jesus. Note that one can believe in the "reality of the resurrection" without believing that it was literal. The authors are simply being politic—and hypocritical.
So if the vast majority of mainline Protestant clergy deny the literal resurrection of Jesus, can that doctrine be a cardinal doctrine of Christianity? Obviously if mainline churches don't care whether the Resurrection was literal, they also don't care about contradictions in some antique religious writings, otherwise known as the Four Gospels.John Foxe 18:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
So, in other words, these 'liberal Protestants' are lying about their beliefs so they can be accepted into the 'Christian' club? I don't understand what you mean when you say one can believe in the "reality of the resurrection" without believing in a 'literal' resurrection. And then you casually discard the Bible. Or, maybe it is the "mainline Protestant clergy" who reject the Bible? What do they teach? The "commandments of men"? I'm sure they still talk about Jesus Christ, but it sounds like their "hearts are far from" Him, if they "deny the power thereof", i.e., the 'literal' resurrection. "Why stand we here in jeopardy every hour?" if there is no 'literal' resurrection? (1 Cor. 15) 74s181 04:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
74, you are going too far and coming very close to a personal attack. Pull back the aggression a little. The topic of who is Christian and who is not is not the topic of this article. Although it is a fascinating subject particularly when one comes to understand that the term is flexible and it really depends on who is wielding the term and their objectives. When it is most often used, it has absolutely nothing to do with the New Testament or the words of Jesus Christ and everything to do with a definition suited to define specific beliefs. What is most often meant is that a person believes in the 4th century church and its major doctrines; Jesus becomes a minor character in the play at this point. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"The topic of who is Christian and who is not is not the topic..." This discussion has mostly been about a particular apologetic response to the First Vision 'contradictions' criticism, but I agree that the most recent exchange has gone off the rails. That was my fault, I let JF push my buttons, it's a sore spot as you know, Storm Rider. I'm still shocked and amazed ("...antique religious writings..."?!?!) but I'll drop it and I won't bring up this particular apologetic response again unless / until I'm ready to add it to the article, with citations, etc. 74s181 12:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"74, you are going too far... personal attack..." Whoa, I didn't see that. I'll take your word for it, I have trouble with personal interaction even in the real world, I often offend people and don't understand why even after it has been explained to me. I'd appreciate knowing exactly where I crossed the line, it might help me to avoid this in the future and it will certainly make it easier for me to apologize to John Foxe. 74s181 12:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe "removed the Methodist minister story as unattested Mormon POV"

"unattested" see definition. Joseph Smith, Jr. asserted that he had the conversation with the Methodist minister, but I don't know that he ever swore an affidavit. I admit, there is no 'official' authentication, it is unlikely that the 14 year old JS, Jr. hired a Fair witness to be present, at least there is no 'extant account' that he did so.<g> 74s181 04:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, John Foxe, since you are now deleting all 'Mormon POV' does that mean I can delete all 'anti-Mormon POV'? I mean, I tried neutralizing some of the anti-mormon POV but you just un-neutralized it, so maybe I should just delete it, eh? 74s181 04:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

All kidding aside, the quote was not introduced as coming from a 'Methodist minister', it was introduced as 'how one person responded'. John Foxe, you really should read stuff before you delete, it did say 'Methodist minister' once upon a time but hasn't for a long time. You see, every time you delete something and I re-add it, I change it to address the objection you stated when you deleted it. You then delete it again, sometimes you even state a different objection, sometimes you just say 'tweak'. This is not a very efficient way to edit the article, but it is the only way you will permit. The statement is in fact 'Mormon POV' but it is fully neutralized via attribution and citation per WP:NPOV, and if you didn't think it was neutral enough, you could have neutralized it instead of deleting it. 74s181 04:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Smith claimed he spoke to a Methodist minister and said he got a reply that no Methodist minister would have given in 1820. That's simple Mormon apologetics because there's no independent confirmation of Smith's improbable story.--John Foxe 14:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you are on shaky ground when you make sweeping comments like "no Methodist minister would have given in 1820". The concept of revelation today to a prophet is just as foreign today as it was in 300 AD. To state that the early 1800's Methodist ministers were unique and all of the same mind is neither logical or believable. --Storm Rider (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my earlier comment about the Methodist minister's supposed answer is buried above where you'd have difficulty seeing it. Here it is again: The response that Smith supposedly received from the Methodist minister is anachronistic. "The heavens are closed" would have been a suitable response of a Methodist minister to the vision of Moroni, but not to Smith's account of the First Vision. If a Methodist minister had heard the canonical First Vision story in 1820, he would have replied, "Son, 'No man hath seen God at any time.' 'God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship him in spirit and in truth.' What you've just said you saw is in direct disagreement with God's Holy Word. You must be deceived."--John Foxe 18:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I can see that possibility, but then again he could have just as easily said "You are as Stephen of old who looked into the heavens and saw Jesus on the right hand side of God". Alternatively, he could have stated the more normal phrase "The heavens are closed. Since the time of Jesus Christ's crucifixtion there as been no need for prophets. He is the only Word we need".
What you are failing to understand is that you are not capable on wikipedia of stating what you know what a person has said or responded; that would be known as original research in this instance. You can quote a reputable source that states a Methodist minister would only have responded in one way..., but I suspect finding one that is reputable will be mightily difficult if not impossible.
When editing wikipedia it is always best to respect all referenced statements, not just those that support your specific point of view. I know this has been said a multitude of times with no impact, but it might be time to step back and realize that you have a blind spot in this regard. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Even though I don't think you have a feel for the way early nineteenth-century evangelical religion worked, my argument is certainly original research. That's why it's here on the talk page rather than in the article.--John Foxe 19:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
But isn't your OR affecting the way you edit the article? I am not a published expert and should never be thought of as such. However, I am a student of religion (private hobby for many years). It is true that I prefer the patristc fathers and early reformation theology rather than 18th and 19th century Protestant theology, but it is not beyond my realm of past study. My hobby is not really here or there, but what is important is that your position motivates you to edit in an unacceptable manner. The fact is that Joseph Smith said..., not that he could only have been wrong and therefore delete that part of history. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with including the quotation in the article so long as there is an accompanying statement noting that there is no independent confirmation for this conversation and in fact, no unambiguous record that Joseph Smith ever mentioned the First Vision to anyone before 1832.--John Foxe 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the two statements as long as they are attributed to an expert, since both are an opinion that is disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74s181 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no opinion involved. There's no dispute about anything except that raised by Mormon apologists. It's a historical fact that there is no extant evidence of an unambiguous mention of the First Vision until 1832 and no unambiguous mention of the canonical First Vision until 1838. Of course, you could always introduce the arguments of Mormon apologists to explain how Joseph Smith was persecuted for telling the First Vision story about seeing God the Father and none of his many Palmyra opponents seemed to have remembered it. But apologetics can never be equated with historical facts.--John Foxe 20:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
John Foxe, again you demonstrate that you are unable or unwilling to understand Neutral Point of View. The fact that apologists have written about these issues in reliable sources means that as far as WP is concerned, your assertions are not undisputed facts, therefore, they need to be attributed and balanced. Of course, the fact that you have to use extreme adjectives like 'unambiguous' is another clue. Do you understand what 'unambiguous' means? It implies an interpretation. WP is not a court of law. The rules of 'evidence' and 'proof' are quite a bit different here. Also, any article that doesn't 'prove' reasonable doubt is by definition a bad article. 74s181 22:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
John, the fact is that there is no extant evidence of an unambiguous mention that Joseph Smith did not tell anyone about the First Vision before 1832. What you decide is "evidence" reveals your POV. It sometimes seems that anything that you agree with is "historical evidence", and anything you don't agree with is Mormon apologists.
John, you help keep a smile on my face, because you keep reminding me of when I was young and knew everything. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 23:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course, I disagree. I'm perfectly comfortable with the following sentence: "Joseph Smith said that he told a Methodist minister about his vision...even though there is no independent confirmation that he told, or did not tell, anyone else about the First Vision before 1832." (For better or worse, Bill, we're roughly the same age, so the follies of youth must still be upon me.)--John Foxe 13:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course, to be compliant with WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements, the statement should be more like this: "Joseph Smith said that he told a Methodist minister about his vision...(ref) However, (insert expert's name here) said there is no independent confirmation that Smith told, or did not tell, anyone else about the First Vision before 1832.(insert reference here)" I've re-added the rejection as told by JS, Jr. in the 1838 account, using similar verbiage and an expert reference. 74s181 13:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent)

I have run out of ideas for different ways to present this, and John Foxe didn't give me any useful clues in his last deletion. So I'm going to try again to discuss this here on the talk page. John Foxe, I'm sincerely trying to understand your objections.

Here's my latest attempt to modify the intro of the 'Response' section in a way satisfactory to John Foxe:

In the oldest known account of the First Vision, written in his own hand in 1832 (twelve years after the commonly accepted date of its occurrence), Joseph Smith, Jr. said he "could find none that would believe" his experience.[120] In a later account he provided additional details about how one person responded:
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.[121]
However, according to Mormon historian James B. Allen "There is little if any evidence ...that by the early 1830’s Joseph Smith was telling the story in public."[85]
People respond to the First Vision today much as they did when it was first first published in 1840 as part of a missionary tract;[122] some believe, some do not.

John Foxe edited:

1. He added "shortly after the experience, he had told the story of his revelation to a Methodist minister", this is surprising because JF has been complaining about the 'Methodist minister'.
2. He buried the JSH quote (a 'historical fact') in the footnotes like he always does, but at least he replaced it with a summary, unfortunately the summary is useless for the purpose of the original quote.
3. He deleted yet another version of the 'People respond' statement, this time without giving any reason why except "revision both for content and style".

Wrp103 edited:

4. He added "although there is no evidence that his family and followers did not believe. "
5. He added "but there is no supporting evidence of this, either."

John Foxe edited again:

6. He removed "although there is no evidence that his family and followers did not believe. "
7. He changed "no supporting evidence of this, either" to "no independent witness of this conversation".

I think the full JSH quote is useful in the intro to the 'response' section as it is the first detailed account of how someone responded to the FV. JF had complained about the 'Methodist minister' part, so I removed it and have done my best to neutralize the rest without neutering it. 74s181 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've also carefully reworded the "People respond..." statement. It is true that I haven't attributed the statement and don't have a reference, but I think the individual elements of the statement, and the statement as a whole are facts like "Mars is a planet." Does anyone seriously dispute that 'some' people believed / believe the FV, and 'some' people did / do not? It seems pretty obvious. The reason I want this sentence is that it introduces the idea of 'belief' and 'disbelief', the two sections under 'response'. 74s181 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, why is it important to you to keep the JSH quote out of the body of the article? I know that you think that the whole thing is a fabrication by JS, Jr., but even if true that isn't a valid objection. No one disputes that JS, Jr. wrote this, that is a 'fact'. Is it really just a difference in style, that is, I like in-line quotes and you don't? Or, is there some other reason you keep removing this quote from the body of the article? 74s181 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, why does the "People respond" sentence? bother you so much? I understand that in its original form it did suggest an opinion, but I'm pretty sure that the statement is now completely factual, no opinion or judgement. Apparently you don't agree. Why? 74s181 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The "people respond" sentence is original research and demands proof. First, the vast number of believers probably did not know of Joseph Smith's First Vision before his death. Further, you would need (unobtainable) proof that people today react the same way to the story of the First Vision as did people of the early nineteenth-century. The statement's nearly a faith-claim and would be disputed by any sociologist worth his salt. Use of Smith's quotation from the minister is an attempt to demonstrate that Smith early told the story of the Vision. And yes, part of my objection is that I hate block quotations.--John Foxe 10:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"...vast number of believers probably did not know..." In order to respond to something, you must have knowledge of it. I don't think the sentence has ever implied anything about how many followers were or were not aware of the First Vision. It doesn't say that believers believed JS, Jr. was a prophet because of the FV, it says that some responded to the FV with belief, and some with disbelief. Maybe your objection is tied to your belief that no one knew anything about the FV, therefore, no one could 'respond'? Or, in other words, saying that anyone believed or disbelieved the FV before JS, Jr. was martyred implies that they knew about the FV, and this conflicts with your interest to show that no one knew about it? If so, I can see why you object to the sentence, but I think the evidence shows that at least 'some' people knew about the FV in 1840, it is included in the Orson Pratt tract, six years before JS, Jr. was martyred. 74s181 12:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"need... proof... people react the same way..." I have already addressed this objection. I used a semicolon to tie the formerly separate sentence "some believe, some do not" to the "people respond" sentence. I believe that this defines the 'response' in a general way. That is, when the FV was / is presented, some believed, some disbelieved in the past, some believe, some disbelieve today. Maybe the specifics of belief or disblief were different in the past than today, but I believe the statement as presented is a fact, like, 'Mars is a planet'. It is not my intent for the statement to imply anything beyond what it says, if anyone can think of any way that it can be further generalized or clarified I would be happy to see it.
John Foxe, you should either edit the statement to make it correct, or, if you really think it is OR then put a tag on it. Deleting it is wrong, especially when you are defending so many other statements that are much worse. I'm going to the mat on this, not because this particular sentence is that important but because the WP principle you are violating is. 74s181 12:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"...I hate block quotations" Well, I find the inline quotelets confusing, I lose track of where the quote begins and ends. It is easier for me when the quotes are separated from the commentary, but that is a personal preference, partly because of my vision problems, partly because I like to keep some things separated. Also, I prefer to let the quote speak for itself rather than try and summarize it. We disagree, but this isn't like WP:NPOV or WP:OR where there are 'absolute and non-negotiable' core principles. Are there any WP policy or guidelines that can help us resolve this conflict? 74s181 12:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrp103, I think I understand why you want the statement "...there is no evidence that his family..." I think this is similar to many statements that John Foxe insists are 'historical facts', except that even John Foxe probably agrees that this is true. And if he doesn't, he should have flagged it as 'OR' rather than delete it. 74s181 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And, BTW, I thought you said "My guess is that the 1834 version was also created in an attempt to compensate for the Zion's Camp disaster", but now you're saying that he made it up in 1832. So I'll ask you again, John Foxe, when do YOU think JS, Jr. first told or wrote the First Vision? 74s181 13:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Paper or plastic? Canonical or non-canonical?--John Foxe 16:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It took me a while to figure out what you meant. So, if we define the "First Vision" as an appearance by Deity, in response to a prayer by Joseph Smith, Jr. in a grove of trees, separate from and prior to the appearance of an angel in JS, Jr.'s bedroom, then, John Foxe, when do you think JS, Jr. first spoke or wrote of the First Vision? 74s181 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The way you've phrased the question makes it even more difficult to answer. The 1832 account has no grove of trees and there's only one deity rather than two.--John Foxe 14:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I used 'Deity' in order to distinguish from an angel while being as non-specific as possible, one, two, ten, whatever. So, are you saying that you consider the 1832 account to be an account of the First Vision, even though there is no grove? That is, I know you believe the FV to be a fabrication, but do you consider the 1832 and 1838 accounts to be a description of the same fabricated event? If so, does that mean the answer to the above question is '1832'? Or, do you consider the 1832 account to be of the visit by Moroni? If so, what is your answer? 74s181 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Smith intended the 1832 account to be the record of an event separate from his vision of Moroni. But there are remarkable differences between the 1832 version and the 1838 version: a different setting (following a major revival) and a different purpose (discovering which sect was correct rather than receiving forgiveness of sins), not to mention his seeing two deities rather than one.--John Foxe 21:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
So your answer is 1832? 74s181 01:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hard to tell without reading Joseph's mind. If the 1832 version had been known in the nineteenth century, I can imagine attempts to treat these differing accounts as separate visions occurring on separate occasions.--John Foxe 14:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
If you see no connection between the 1832 and 1838 account, I suppose that means you think that the 1835 account is the first account of the "First Vision", and that JS, Jr. expanded on this account in 1838? It's a pretty simple question, John Foxe. You believe that JS, Jr. fabricated the FV, when do YOU think he did this? 74s181
If it were a simple question others more knowledgeable than us would have delineated the probabilities long ago.--John Foxe 11:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
"...delineated the probabilities..." Shrewd, very shrewd, John Foxe. I think I've 'delineated' most of the possibilities, but I'm going to drop this for now. If I decide to pursue the issue I'll probably use the 1830 date you stated as part of the "little if any evidence that Smith mentioned" POV. 74s181 02:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot ordinarily speak to a lack of evidence but rather to an existence of evidence.

I do not know if it is relevant, I do not even know what the discussion is about exactly, but I see that Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. has a footnote to an historical document that discusses a Methodist Minister's interactions with Joseph Smith. I have not read it but it seems like it would be of interest here--Blue Tie 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

William Smith's 1883 remembrances about his brother's interaction with Rev. George Lane create as many problems for Mormons as they solve because there's no record of Lane being in the Palmyra area until he helped lead the 1824 revival. Of course, in my view, Smith telling Lane about the Moroni vision, rather than the First Vision, makes perfect sense.--John Foxe 13:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not interested in causing the Mormons problems, but if the information is valid, so be it. --Blue Tie 00:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Blue Tie, don't be confused. John Foxe seems to think that the Mormons only want positive information in the article. Actually, most of us want a fair and balanced article, which would include both pro and con evidence presented in a NPOV manner so that the reader can make up their own mind. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 01:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, I couldn't find the reference you mentioned. Could you be more... specific? 74s181 13:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. I do not have any idea how relevant it is. I am not sure what the issues are that are being discussed here, I just know it is related to a Methodist Minister who knew Joseph Smith. This seems to be something about that. I have not read this thing. --Blue Tie 00:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I read the reference that Blue Tie provided above, it is very interesting, and if you haven't read it, I suggest that you do. It doesn't prove that JS, Jr. ever talked to Rev. Lane, but it does provide evidence that Rev. Lane attended the Vienna / Phelps conferences in 1819 and 1822, and may have passed even closer to the Smith home in July of 1820, and could very well have been the 'Methodist minister' that JS, Jr. said he spoke to. 74s181 12:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Smith never mentioned Lane's name, and William Smith said that Joseph met Lane in the context of the Palmyra area revival. It's just supposition on supposition. There were plenty of Methodists in the Palmyra area; what's the big deal with Lane.--John Foxe 14:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This discussion continues at Talk:First_Vision#Lane.2C_etc. 74s181 03:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Submitted Request for Comments on John Foxe

For more info, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/John Foxe.

One other person needs to certify the RfC within 48 hours or it will be deleted. More information 74s181 06:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the RfC has been certified and approved. 74s181 13:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lane, etc.

I've tightened up the paragraph on Lane. Smith never mentions Lane's name, and there's no evidence that Lane and Smith conversed, especially before the Palmyra revival. Why is this hypothetical meeting between the two important anyway? There were plenty of Methodist ministers in Upstate New York to whom Smith might have told his tale.

To say that people today react to the First Vision story as they did in the nineteenth century is not obvious; it's WP:OR (see, I'm learning Wiki-speak). It's a statement that requires proof.--John Foxe 14:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no 'big deal with Lane'. William Smith said JS, Jr. was influenced by him to pray for an answer, even though he got the dates wrong. An expert 'proves' that Lane was in the right place at the right time, both before and shortly after the 1820 FV date. So, we have the following facts:
  • JS, Jr. said he attended revivals and was partial to Methodism prior to the FV in 1820. He also said he told a Methodist minister about the FV shortly after it occurred in 1820, but didn't mention any names.
  • William Smith said JS, Jr. was influenced by Lane, but gives the wrong date. He also says that JS, Jr.'s account is more accurate and complete.
  • Porter, an expert, presents evidence that Lane attended a conference in the area in 1819, and probably passed near JS, Jr.'s home on his way to another conference in July of 1820, and if he did, he probably preached a sermon in a camp meeting nearby.
Although I would prefer the JSH quote as a blockquote, I am happy that you have left it in the body of the article. Thank you. Perhaps we can discuss when, if ever, you think blockquotes are appropriate. Like I said before, if there are any WP guidelines on this I'd like to see them. 74s181 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
However, "..no independent corroboration of this conversation..." needs attribution, or at the very least, a reference. 74s181 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the Porter excerpt is interesting enough to have some mention in the body of the article. It certainly has nothing to do with "..no evidence...Smith...mentioned...prior to 1832.", which is where it is cited. 74s181 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think "..no evidence...Smith...mentioned...prior to 1832" should be attributed in the body of the article. There was an excerpt which is now in the footnotes:
Mormon historian James B. Allen has stated: "There is little if any evidence...that by the early 1830’s Joseph Smith was telling the story in public."
This says 'little if any evidence', it does not say 'no evidence'. This illustrates the danger of paraphrasing, it is sooo easy for our own POV to creep in. I prefer to let the reference speak for itself, unfortunately I don't have time to fix this right now. 74s181 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Allen says "little if any," but we both know that there is none. If there had been anything even conceivable, he would have mentioned it when writing for a Mormon journal.
Lane needs to stay in the footnotes. As I said above, Smith could have mentioned his story to any Methodist minister in the area. To go through the whole supposition on supposition about Lane, as if his connection adds any weight to the credibility of Joseph's Vision, is a red herring and irrelevant to the article.
In good writing, one tries to merge short quotations into one's own composition. "Two rules of thumb...(1) Quotations must be kept short, and (2) they must as far as possible be merged into the text." Barzun & Graff, The Modern Researcher (1992), 275.--John Foxe 19:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"...but we both know that there is none." No, we don't. But even if we did, the expert you are citing says "little if any evidence", that is not the same as "no evidence", therefore, your statement of "no evidence" is OR. 74s181 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I worked on this a bit. It is still WP:OR, JF is drawing a conclusion based on the reference, but at least it is now more accurate OR. 74s181 13:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
What other conclusion could you draw?--John Foxe 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR and WP:NPOV both say that 'we' (as in, WP editors) are not allowed to draw a conclusion. We must find an expert who has drawn the conclusion and cite him.
And, BTW, you know that you're supposed to either fix the problem or ask questions here first. AFTER you fix it, or AFTER 'we' (as in, WP editors) discuss it, THEN you can delete the tag. The only time it is appropriate for you to arbitrarily delete a tag like that is if you have reason to believe it is vandalism. Do you think I'm a vandal? 74s181 20:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Two experts, Palmer and Allen, have spoken. It's their conclusion, not ours.--John Foxe 21:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's see what they said.
Text says: "there is little if any evidence that Smith mentioned (or, for that matter, did not mention) the First Vision to anyone prior to 1830"
Translation: FV was probably not mentioned to anyone prior to 1830.
Palmer says: "earliest allusion... transcribed in June 1830...printed in the Book of Commandments"
Translation: There is evidence that shows the FV was dictated in 1830 and printed shortly after. Doesn't say anything about whether or not JS, Jr. mentioned the FV to anyone prior to 1830. 74s181 01:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Allen says: "little if any evidence...that by the early 1830’s Joseph Smith was telling the story in public... at best it received only limited circulation in those early days"
Translation: JS, Jr. wasn't telling the story in public prior to the early 1830's. but it might have received limited circulation. Doesn't say JS, Jr, didn't mention the FV to anyone prior to 1830. 74s181 01:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
"probably not mentioned before 1830" is your interpretation, John Foxe, your POV. It is not supported by these historical facts. 74s181 01:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
So does simply adding the word "publicly" make a difference?--John Foxe 14:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I can live with that. It is closer to what Allen said, but he also said the FV might have received limited circulation. Wouldn't it be easier to let Allen speak for himself? 74s181 04:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
"Lane needs to stay in the footnotes" The Lane ref has nothing to do with "no evidence that Smith either mentioned". I think it is an interesting reference, maybe we can work it into "Date of the First Vision". Or, maybe a lot of the material in "Date of the First Vision" should really be in the "Questions" section. 74s181 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It may be an interesting reference, but if you add to the text we'll have to note that that Joseph never mentioned Lane, that the only connection between Smith and Lane is the one described by William more than sixty years after the event, that William Smith certainly got the date wrong, and that there is no certainty that Lane even visited Palmyra until 1824. The Lane story provides no additional support for the canonical First Vision story, so I don't see the purpose of running the reader through all this. If I were an inquirer, I'd say "This is the best they can do for evidence?"--John Foxe 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with everything you said except "no certainty that Lane even visited Palmyra until 1824." It is interesting how well you seem to understand WP:NPOV when it works to your favor, now if you could just manage to apply this knowledge to text you've added to the article, rather than analyzing something that hasn't even been written... 74s181 01:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw that glint in your eye.--John Foxe 10:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
"...glint in your eye." If there is a glint in my eye maybe it is because the statement in First_Vision#Date_of_the_First_Vision "..but William's date is incorrect because Lane's visit to Palmyra occurred in 1824-25..." is no longer a 'historical fact' and can now be neutralized. 74s181 04:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
William chose 1823 as the date of Lane's visit, a date that cannot be correct. But William refers to an interdenominational revival that only occurred in 1824-25. Lane's speaking (unattested) at a Methodist camp meeting (unattested) during a visit to Palmyra before 1824 (unattested) does not work here.--John Foxe 10:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
"...1823...cannot be correct." William admits that JS, Jr.'s account is more correct, so he may have been wrong on the date. Obviously I think it was much earlier than 1823, but it may have also been later, that is, there is a possibility for multiple contacts between Lane and JS, Jr. both before the 1820 FV date and later, at or around the time of the Moroni visitation. The point is, here's a reliable source, what he says is interesting, although it doesn't completely satisfy it does address certain criticisms. Tt doesn't really matter what you think about this, John Foxe, but I'm not going to waste my time fighting over this right now. 74s181 03:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I moved the Porter / Lane ref up to "...told the story of his revelation to a Methodist minister", I think it makes more sense there than it did down by "little if any evidence". 74s181 13:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
"Quotations must be kept short... as far as possible be merged into the text" So, when is a blockquote appropriate? And, why is it that blockquotes from other accounts of the FV are ok, but blockquotes from the 1838 account are not? I'm also curious what Barzun & Graff have to say about footnotes that are longer than, and either contradict, or have little if anything to do with, the text that references them. 74s181 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
But it doesn't really matter what Barzun & Graff or anyone else have written on dead trees, Wikipedia has its own set of rules. This is the only medium where the opinion of the writer is expressly and absolutely forbidden. All other media, books, newspapers, encyclopedias, whatever, may talk about objectivity, but all expect the writer to interpret and combine facts from primary sources and draw conclusions. That sort of thing is strictly forbidden on WP. Secondary sources are preferred, and there are very strict rules on the use of primary sources, this is why longer quotes are more appropriate. John Foxe, will you agree that IF there is a need for a longer quote, it should be a blockquote? If so, how long do you think it has to be? 74s181 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Somehow I knew dead trees were going to make their way into this discussion. Barzun & Graff are discussing good writing wherever, and in good writing, "Quotations must be kept short and as far as possible be merged into the text." Sometimes they can't be. In that case quotations should be as short as possible. As I've said before, readers regularly pass their eyes over block quotations.--John Foxe 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
What expert says "readers regularly pass their eyes over block quotations"? Maybe he also say "readers regularly read every footnote", is that why you keep moving quotes to the footnotes? Seems like a bit of a contradiction, hmmm? <g> 74s181 01:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Most people don't read footnotes either. That's why virtually all publishers these days require authors to stick notes in the back of the article or book—where it makes them even more difficult for serious readers to consult.
What Barzun & Graff say is that "quotations are illustrations not proofs...it is not the length, depth or weight of your quotations that convinces your reader." (275)--John Foxe 10:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
"...quotations are illustrations not proofs..." That's interesting. How do you interpret that in the Wikipedia context? That is, the only thing we should ever be trying to 'prove' on WP is that a particular POV exists, and what that POV is, doesn't that change the equation? 74s181 12:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
"...it is not the length, depth or weight of your quotations that convinces your reader." Maybe this is true, so, other than quotes, what 'convinces the reader' of a dead trees publication? (not in any particular order)
  • circulation, or, IOW, the number of trees killed for a particular publication
  • the reputation of the publisher
  • the reputation of the author(s)
  • reviews or 'buzz'
  • the author's rhetorical skill
It's interesting that the only item in this list that should even marginally apply to Wikipedia articles is the reputation of the publisher. That is, for any given article, circulation is unknown, author(s) are unknown, there are two million articles in a constant state of flux so few if any are reviewed or discussed outside of WP, and rhetoric (other than in quotes) is forbidden. Well, I suppose a good article star is a form of review, but you, John Foxe, have rejected that. So what's left? 74s181 12:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a helpful tool when investigating non-controversial topics, rarely when checking out something as controverted as this topic. A reader who googles "First Vision" will only be convinced that this is a serious piece if it is, from the get-go, obvious that it is well researched, well organized, and well written. A plethora of block quotations will immediately cue him that it's not.--John Foxe 18:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is a helpful tool..." I agree that Wikipedia is less helpful on controversial subjects. The fact that a single editor can so easily extend and defend the current anti-Mormon bias of the First Vision article simply by ignoring WP policies is a perfect example of this problem. 74s181 04:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
"A reader who googles "First Vision" will only be convinced that this is a serious piece..." I agree with everything you said except "A plethora of block quotations will immediately cue him that it's not." What is going to cue him that it's not is the current article, which reads like a mishmash of excerpts from anti-Mormon literature rewritten in (Oxford accent here) a scholarly tone. Ok, that's a bit of an exageration. But only a bit. 74s181 04:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Articles that are "well researched, well organized, and well written" should have a scholarly tone. That doesn't mean they should read like academic monographs, which are often full of block quotations. The authors of such pieces don't really care if they're readable because no one but their professional enemies and a few long-suffering graduate students will ever wade through them.--John Foxe 10:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we don't want to write a boring 'academic monograph', but this supposed to be an encyclopedia, not 'USA Today' or 'The National Enquirer'. 74s181 03:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You added a reference that says "The earliest allusion, oral or written, to the first vision is the brief mention that was transcribed in June 1830 and originally printed in the Book of Commandments." Does this mean that you accept the 1830 'allusion' as a reference to the First Vision as we've previously discussed? That is, appearance of Deity in response to JS, Jr's prayer, prior to and separate from the appearance of an angel in his bedroom? 74s181 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
No. I think it refers to Moroni.--John Foxe 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not really following this discussion but, if the block quotes in question are quotes from the First Vision or they are commentary about the first vision by Joseph Smith then they would not be inappropriate for the article. On the other hand, block quotes of any other sort probably should be examined critically. I say this without knowing what block quotes are at issue or what the problem is. --Blue Tie 21:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The block quotes that John Foxe seems to resist most strongly are from the 1838 / JSH / PoGP account. However, he seems perfectly fine with block quotes that he thinks will discredit JS, Jr., like quotes from other accounts that have grammatical or punctuation errors or appear to contradict the 1838 / JSH / PoGP account. Or 'Faculty of Abrac'. 74s181 04:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm more than willing to merge all block quotes into the text, and I have no problem eliminating Smith's grammatical and spelling errors, which I think are distracting to the reader. Original spelling can always go in the notes.--John Foxe 10:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
That isn't what I meant, and just so we're clear, I oppose this. 74s181 03:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that block quotes of the actual account are appropriate, as long as they are not too long, and I think if a choice must be made between versions, the version that was preferred by Joseph Smith should be used. If Joseph Smith did not prefer a version, his most complete version should be used, if one exists. If none are particularly complete, then the last one should be used. I do not think there should be block quotes by commentators... mormon or otherwise.--Blue Tie 21:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Blue Tie, I have been trying to tell the 'what' of the First Vision using block quote excerpts from the 1838 / JSH / PoGP account (canonized by TCoJCoLdS) since April. John Foxe won't allow it.
I believe that in a controversial article like this one it is better to quote the expert than to summarize or paraphrase. As we've seen, it can be very difficult to paraphrase without injecting our own POV. 74s181 03:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think any quote that is long enough to wrap to a second line within the text should be presented as a block quote. Presenting quotes as block quotes doesn't make the article any more or less interesting, but it does make it easier to read and understand. 74s181 03:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem if the quotations are excerpts from the various accounts of Joseph Smith's vision; but block quotations are always a hindrance to readability. Always. Readers regularly skip them. They make nothing easier to read or understand. That's why historians write history rather than provide their readers with a grab bag of quotations.--John Foxe 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"I have no problem if the quotations are excerpts from the various accounts of Joseph Smith's vision..." So, you would allow someone to rework the "What Smith said he saw" section using excerpts from the FV accounts, as long as they did it without block quotes? 74s181 04:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
"...historians write history rather than... grab bag of quotations." Yes, historians write their opinions and use historical facts to back up their assertions. But this is Wikipedia. We are not writers here, we are editors. We report on the assertions and opinions of historians and others, we don't express our own, except on the talk pages. And In My Humble Opinion, that means more quotes and longer quotes. Regarding readability, I have to disagree, when I'm reading a WP article I really want to be able to differentiate what an expert said from what a WP editor said, especially after some of the things I've seen while working on this article. But that's just my opinion. 74s181 04:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent). If this is a matter of using Block Quotes or not using Block Quotes (for purposes of readability and formatting and so on) I would suggest using the wikipedia manual of style as the rule on how to handle the matter. If the manual of style is quiet on the matter, I would suggest that block quotes are reasonably allowed and expected because the media provides for them. --Blue Tie 20:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Blue Tie, there is a guideline after all.
Block quotations
A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, which Wikimedia’s software will indent from both margins. Block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks (especially including decorative ones such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, used only for "call-outs", which are generally not appropriate in Wikipedia articles). Use a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags. [The current version of Wikitext will not render multiple paragraphs in blockquote tags. The workaround is to nest a div in the blockquote]
There are also other useful suggestions about quotes as well as other style guidelines. 74s181 21:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem with impugns

I have some problems with this sentence: "Critics suggest the variation between versions of the account belies the reality of the event and impugns Smith's character or motives."

First, if we use the word "impugns" then it is singular and refers to "the variation". But does the variation do something so active as impugn? I think it takes a person to impugn. Also, the word impugn seems a bit complex (just like the word belies). I would rather have something different out of a thesaurus. Also... I wonder if the word impugn is the right one. Do the critics impugn his motives and character or just question them? I guess some do impugn now that I think of it. --Blue Tie 23:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really like 'impugns' or 'belies', I'm afraid many people won't understand these words. 74s181 12:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding 'criticize' vs 'question'. John Foxe doesn't like the word 'critic' or any variation, so we've more or less adopted 'question' as a more neutral euphemism for 'criticize'. 74s181 12:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Critics is nice and tight. Otherwise you have to use the wordy "Those who Question". Its silly. Be straight up and write clean text. --Blue Tie 12:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but John Foxe wouldn't allow it. 'Question' was a compromise that allowed some (not much) progress to be made. 74s181 01:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this particular sentence is suffering from edit fatigue.<g> Here's an older version where the ideas are a bit more clear:
Non-Mormons, and even some who are members of LDS churches, have challenged teachings about Smith's First Vision, citing differences between his accounts and a lack of corroboration by his contemporaries. Most non-Mormons claim that the vision was not a real event, often questioning Smith's character and motivation.
Even that version had its problems. I think the important ideas are:
  • Some LDS criticize the official teachings about the FV based on the differences in the various accounts.
  • Some non-LDS say the differences between accounts prove that JS, Jr. made it up.
  • Some non-LDS say JS, Jr. had character flaws that prove he couldn't have been a real prophet, and therefore, the FV couldn't have happened.
  • Some non-LDS have identified specific motives JS, Jr. may have had for fabricating the FV.
There have been attempts to include other classes of criticism which failed. I've previously argued for an outline of the different classes or types of criticism. It was difficult to get the the article to even acknowledge that there is any such thing as criticism, now that we're finally past that hurdle I think it is now time to talk about an outline. Doesn't it make sense that this part of the lead should be a high level summary of the different types of criticism? 74s181 12:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Some and Most are weaselly. That is the problem with those sentences.--Blue Tie 12:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, 'some' is a weasel word and each of these statements should be attributed to an identified group. For purposes of discussion on the talk page I think that 'some' is the most neutral word. If we could get JF to acknowledge that 'some' have these different POVs, then we could start talking about 'who'. JF's doesn't object to 'some' because it is a weasel word, he insists that there should be no POV in the article, only 'historical facts'. 74s181 01:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
No. Historical facts are not criticism. Mormon apologists may be quoted in response to historical facts; but to label historical facts as criticism is WP:POV. To change the lead in the way 74s181 has suggested will only generate more Mormon POV in what is now arguably one of the most WP:NPOV Wikipedia articles on any aspect of Mormon theology.--John Foxe 21:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"Historical facts are not criticism." This is a good example of the secondary complaint in the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/John_Foxe, your inability or unwillingness to understand and edit according to WP:NPOV. I don't see any point in further discussion of the problems in the lead until the larger problem is resolved. 74s181 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not know what this is referring to "Historical facts are not criticsm", but the phrase "Historical facts" is suspect. What are the "facts" of "History"? In almost any event there are recorded perceptions of what happened. These are not necessarily "facts". But I do not know what the problem is. Maybe someone is unhappy about the reporting of a confimed and accepted bit of history?--Blue Tie 12:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the talk page archive and you'll soon understand what the problem is. 74s181 01:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"Maybe someone is unhappy about the reporting of a confimed and accepted bit of history"? It's unclear exactly what you are describing as a "confimed and accepted bit of history". Duke53 | Talk 13:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Careful, Duke53. I think that Blue Tie may be on your side from a POV perspective. 74s181 01:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The only side that I'm on is the side for "Truth, Justice .... and the 'Wikipedia way' ". I am also against any religious group turning Wikipedia into their own personal P.R. tool. Duke53 | Talk 15:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The 'Wikpedia way' says, edit, don't revert. A couple quotes from WP:REVERT:
  • If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.
  • Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
John Foxe seems to prefers "TRUTH" over the 'Wikipedia way'. His behavior suggests that he believes the end justifies the means, and that means he will revert most edits that don't agree with his POV rather than attempting to improve them. Well, to be completely fair, I think he believes that his reverts are an improvement, but this is just more evidence of his ownership attitude and behavior. 74s181 17:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"Justice" requires action from the Wikipedia community in response to John Foxe's behavior. The gears grind slowly, but I think they are finally turning. 74s181 17:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"...against any... group... personal P.R. tool." I agree, and I think this includes whatever group John Foxe belongs to. It's pretty hard to tell what he believes, maybe he's a Calvinist, maybe an Evangelical, maybe an athiest, what is clear is that he is an anti-Mormon. And I don't mean this as a personal attack, normally religious beliefs aren't relevant on Wikipedia but in this case, knowing where JF is coming from might make compromise easier. Right now all we get is "no, no, no, no, no, ok, I'll allow that", if we knew JF's POV we might be able to get to "ok, I'll allow that" with fewer reverts. 74s181 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Historical facts are not criticism" is John Foxe's way of attacking the First Vision, Joseph Smith, Jr., etc. while claiming to be neutral. His argument is, these statements are facts, they are not criticsm, therefore, they don't have to be attributed or balanced. They just 'are'.

But, what are these 'historical facts'? Well, in the case of the First Vision, there really aren't many facts of the type that John Foxe is implying. Joseph Smith, Jr. was the only eye witness to the First Vision. All we have are his statements and writings about the FV. So, John Foxe compares statements made at different times, and because he doesn't explicitly state a conclusion he claims that he is just stating facts. That is, a NPOV way to state a conclusion would be 'Expert so and so said A but B, therefore, C'. John Foxe's method is 'A, but B'. Because he doesn't state a conclusion, he believes the statement is a 'fact' but such a comparison is WP:OR, specifically, WP:SYN, however, John Foxe resists any attempt to 'neutralize' such statements or tag them as OR. 74s181 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"There is no extant evidence that Lucy Mack Smith ever mentioned the First Vision." That's a historical fact. No experts need be quoted. There's no evidence that she ever said anything about the First Vision, period. The statement is not criticism. Apologists can make apologies; but that particular statement is a historical fact.--John Foxe 21:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"Although Joseph Smith said he was persecuted for telling the First Vision story in the Palmyra area, there is no evidence that anyone even heard the story before 1832, twelve years after he said the event occurred." That's a historical fact. No experts need be quoted—even though in fact, the article does quote a BYU professor as all but saying such.--John Foxe 21:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"...no extant evidence that Lucy Mack Smith ever mentioned...no evidince that anyone even heard..." According to who? Are you omniscient enough to be positive that nowhere on the face of the earth is there any scrap of evidence showing that these things did happen? And if you are, who are you that anyone should take your word for it? This is the problem with negative evidence, it may be true that most or even all experts believe it, but this is an opinion and must be attributed. And, FWIW, we've shown you evidence, maybe not 'proof' but evidence, therefore your assertion that there is no evidence is false.
And, BTW, John Foxe, maybe you've forgotten about the tax record 'historical fact'? Remember, the one that you were so certain about, that ultimately you admitted wasn't as clear cut as you had originally thought? So, if you were wrong about that one, couldn't you be wrong about something else? This is a rhetorical question, it doesn't matter how you respond, NPOV policy states that statements like those you've described above need to be attributed.74s181 01:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe also presents lack of evidence as evidence. 'JS, Jr. said X, but there is no record of...' This is also WP:OR, lack of evidence isn't a fact, it is an opinion. There may be evidence out there that JF isn't aware of. The correct form would be, 'JS, Jr. said X, but expert so and so says there is no record of...', however, John Foxe resists attributing such statements, or tagging them as OR. 74s181 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I said 'John Foxe resists...' The way he resists is by reverting. In the past he would do full reverts using the various revert tools. After being reported for 3RR he became more 'Foxey' (his term, not mine), he started doing multiple edits with the same result. Today he is Foxier still, he makes a small change in the reverted text so it isn't exactly the same as it was before other people edited. 74s181 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just trying to improve the wording or suggest a compromise.--John Foxe 21:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Then improve it or suggest a compromise. When you revert, you are implying that you are the final authority on what goes into the article, you're saying 'I don't like that, go back and try again'. Or, IOW, you are the final arbiter of content. Your behavior is wrong, please stop. 74s181 01:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you can find another half dozen Mormons who endorse your position. But I'm the only non-Mormon editing here and therefore, by default, represent the non-Mormon Wikipedia community at this article.--John Foxe 14:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"I'm sure you can find another half dozen Mormons who endorse your position" :) ... Aha! Did someone mention a 'swarm' to you quite a while ago? Duke53 | Talk 15:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

NO! Every editor represents just themselves on Wikipedia unless they are employed by a specific group, wich is strongly frowned upon. The fact you are a non-Mormon Foxe is beside the point. You have a POV just like every other editor and attempting to claim you have a superior position because you are non-Mormon is just plain silly. You have no more rights as an editor than every other editor; no more and no less! Please keep your comments in the realm of trying to at least acknowledging we have policies that need to be followed regardless of how many times you flaunt them. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: I am the only non-Mormon editing here, and I am upholding NPOV at this article for the entire Wikipedia community. I challenge you to find three non-Mormon administrators who will declare this article unbalanced or POV—either as it stands today or as it existed several months ago before this concerted Mormon attack on historical fact began.--John Foxe 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"...only non-Mormon...upholding NPOV at this article for the entire Wikipedia community." Well, it is true that "this isn't 1830, and there aren't just six of us" <g> (President Harold B. Lee as quoted by President Boyd K. Packer), but as you have frequently pointed out there are many more non-Mormons than Mormons, this is true even here on Wikipedia. 74s181 20:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
John Foxe, if you believe that the article is or was neutral and / or is being or has been taken over by Mormons then you should use the dispute resolution process rather than reverting. For example, you could submit a request for comments on the article or request mediation. However, the 'historical facts' are that both Mormons and non-Mormons have tried to edit here in the past and were driven away by your WP:OWN behavior. I believe that any close examination of the article history and talk page archives will reveal this, and I think that is why you have rejected mediation in the past. 74s181 20:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I will not be driven away by you, John Foxe. To paraphrase Joseph Smith, Jr., "I will not stand by another minute and witness such behavior. Cease such behavior or you or I will be banned!" And I mean it, I am going to the mat on this, you will change your behavior or you or I or both of us will be banned. 74s181 20:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"...find three non-Mormon administrators..." I requested mediation a short time ago, you rejected it. And now you're trying to change the subject of the RfC I filed into a POV dispute. I agree that there are major NPOV problems with the article, but they cannot be fixed as long as you persist in your ownership behavior. 74s181 20:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe the article has been captured by Mormons. It has simply come under a concerted attack by Mormons in an attempt to insure that Mormon apologetics will be given equal status with historical fact—otherwise known by non-Wikipedians as "truth." Nevertheless, the question to be answered by any objective investigator is not my behavior or yours or whether you or I "own" this article but whether the article as it now stands makes a suitable contribution to Wikipedia. It does. In fact, not only are there no major WP:NPOV problems with this article, it is a model of WP:NPOV.--John Foxe 15:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe reverts the lead

Yet another John Foxe revert. 74s181 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • diff showing before and after John Foxe's edit of 16:39, 19 September 2007
  • diff showing comparison of '17:17, 17 September 2007 John Foxe' to '16:39, 19 September 2007 John Foxe'
  • Changes in 2nd and 3rd paragraph of the lead were reverted. That is, the word 'repeatedly' was removed, and 'event' was changed to 'First Vision', otherwise JF's last edit is a revert of the lead to the previous edit of John Foxe two days ago. Well, at least he didn't do a full revert of two days of editing like he has done in the past. 74s181 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • JF Edit description: (revised to remove Mormon POV; eliminated wordiness, a typical byproduct of POV writing)

John Foxe, you might be 100% correct in your evaluation of the edits in the lead but they were not vandalism, it was not appropriate for you to revert. You didn't even leave a note on the talk page explaining why. This is a good example of the primary complaint in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/John_Foxe, that is, your WP:OWN behavior. 74s181 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the complaint. While I have only a very mild preference from the version that Foxe reverted, it is not very strong. I do not mind Foxes version that much but I think the other was an improvement. However, the aggressive ownership without discussion is a habit that is disconcerting-- even more than the content. --Blue Tie 12:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand that you only had a mild preference for your changes, but as you said, John Foxe's behavior is a problem. The only reason JF isn't reverting as much today as in the past is because there isn't much editing going on, and that is because everyone is tired of John Foxe repeatedly treating their edits as vandalism. 74s181 14:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
But in John Foxe's eyes, these edits are vandalism, and his actions aren't reverts, they are his "...struggle to construct and preserve a fine NPOV article—in [JF's] opinion, one of the most neutral and best-written articles about any Mormon doctrine on Wikipedia" 74s181 14:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Not vandalism, just attempts to foist Mormon POV on the article lead. As the only non-Mormon editing here, I feel a responsibility to counter edits intended to foist a religious agenda on the article. The anonymous editor didn't leave any notes on the talk page either, and you didn't complain about that.--John Foxe 21:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"...I feel a responsibility to counter edits..." Then counter them by editing like the rest of us, or discuss them on the talk page, but don't revert. 74s181 00:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"The anonymous editor didn't leave any notes..." Yes, but the anonymous editor edited in good faith. Bill posted a welcome on the anon IP's talk page. You reverted with no discussion. 74s181 00:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between a good faith edit and a revert, you may not have liked the edits, they may have been biased as you said, but this is not a biography of a living person and the edits were not vandalism. In your statement above you stated that the edits had a NPOV problem, so by definition, you had no justification to revert. Unless, of course, you consider this article to be your own personal property, then I guess any edit that you don't like is vandalism, eh? 74s181 00:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
My edits have been in good faith and will continue to be in good faith. I modified, rather than reverted, the anonymous editor's words and only removed that part of the edit that were Mormon POV.--John Foxe 14:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
John Foxe, you restored the lead to an older version with two minor exceptions. This was still a revert even though you retained one change made by two other editors and made one change yourself.
  • This diff shows where Blue Tie removed the word "repeatedly" from the sentence "...has been repeatedly compared to Smith's earlier and later accounts of the event."
  • This diff shows that the only difference between the version of the lead before four edits by '75.171.87.83' and three edits by Blue Tie is that you retained Blue Tie's removal of "repeatedly", and you changed "event" to "First Vision" in "Those who question the reality of the First Vision note differences...".
  • This diff shows a comparison of the lead before and after your revert.
Clearly, this was a revert. The only 'good faith' edit was that after reverting, you removed the word "repeatedly" and changed "event" to "First Vision". All other edits were discarded in favor of a version of the lead that you preferred. 74s181 17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
However, you did allow wrp103's restoration of material you deleted in a different section to remain. Woo Hoo! 74s181 17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Above, Bill wrote, "'According to Smith, he indirectly mentioned' - again, OR - no expert pointing out that this is a problem." I interpreted that remark to mean that Bill preferred to delete that sentence. When he said he had no such interest, I had no further interest in the sentence. It had no POV problem (or weak writing, for that matter) as there was with the recent anonymous editor's additions. You can call what I did a revision or a reversion, but the consequence was that I prevented Mormon POV from being introduced into an NPOV lead. That's not only "good faith," it's commendable good faith and the upholding of the best interests of the Wikipedia community.--John Foxe 18:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you're trying to change the subject. The subject is not Bill's edits, you didn't revert those. The subject is your revert of four edits by '75.171.87.83' and three edits by Blue Tie. 74s181 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"...anonymous editor's additions." Let's see, here's a diff of three edits by Blue Tie that you reverted, except for a one word change. 74s181 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"...prevented Mormon POV from being introduced..." Maybe it was neutral POV, maybe not, but you 'prevented' it by reverting, that is wrong. From WP:REVERT:
  • If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.
  • Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
I think the policy is clear. 74s181 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I followed policy exactly: I found those edits unsatisfactory and improved them. Some edits are worthy of tweaking, as did the one I modified in my last edit, while others require extensive revision, as did those of Blue Tie and the anonymous editor. This article as it now stands is a generally well-written and organized treatment of a particular aspect of Mormon history and doctrine; but the article's generally NPOV character needs to be protected from those who might wish to impose on it their own religious dogma. That's why I'm here; and that's why my presence and aggressive editing upholds the best interests of the Wikipedia community--John Foxe 20:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
So, you claim that you 'aggresively edited' the lead and the result just happened to be identical to the previous version of the lead with two minor exceptions. Or, in other words, there is only circumstantial evidence that you reverted, your edits just coincidentally resulted in the previous version with one word removed and one word changed. 74s181 20:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Your statement implies that you didn't review the edit history to see what the lead looked like prior to the edits by Blue Tie and the anonymous editor. Is that what you're saying? Of course, you didn't actually say this, very Foxey indeed. 74s181 20:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I am somewhat annoyed that a person who has a huge pov problem himself would edit my changes that were not particularly pov -- and do so without any explanation of what the problem was. --Blue Tie 01:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I've edited again immediately in an attempt to demonstrate that my disagreement with your edit was as much stylistic as substantive. At least this time no one will accuse me of changing only one word.--John Foxe 11:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I also revised the sentence that was based on Mormon apologetics about the First Vision being an important doctrine before Smith's martyrdom.--John Foxe 15:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent).I do not like the word "frequently" because I consider adjectives usually and adverbs often to be pov. However, it is not bad. Otherwise I like the way it reads now, if it is accurate and I assume it is. --Blue Tie 16:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd rewrite to tighten up the section. I removed the "OR" tag both because there's already one at the top of the article and because I think the 1830 possibility is strictly a Mormon notion and can be appropriately documented from LDS sources. If you don't think Jeff Lindsay is enough, we can find other apologists to cite as well.
I don't like superfluous adjectives either. In fact, I don't like any superfluous parts of speech, and I'm always ready to cut verbiage when possible. Clarity is always distasteful to those who have things to hide, which is why we often say that government documents are written in "bureaucratese."--John Foxe 18:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
If Jeff Lindsay is enough citation for you, Blue Tie, he's enough citation for me as well.--John Foxe 18:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ

This is useful info that we need in the article, unforunately the cited reference is an email which doesn't meet the criteria for reliable source. I added a tag. 74s181 02:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--John Foxe 14:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad we can agree on something. You'll notice that I tagged it rather than deleting it. Hawstom brought up The Church of Jesus Christ a short time ago, I checked their website, did a little searching on the Internet and couldn't come up with anything about their position on the FV, reliable or not, so I didn't add it myself. Although the addition doesn't support my POV, I recognize it as a good faith attempt to improve the article and I hope that someone will find a reliable source reference that either supports the assertion or clarifies the position of TCoJC relating to the FV. If a month or two goes by and no one comes up with anything we'll have to delete it. 74s181 17:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed reference to Smith's 1838 history because I don't understand how the church's literature can refer to the 1838 account and yet have only one "personage." Otherwise, my edits were intended to improve style.--John Foxe 21:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not emphasized?

Let's take this one sentence at a time.<g> The sentence I want to discuss today is:

Although the vision was not emphasized during Smith's lifetime,[1] by the end of the nineteenth century it became an important element of the faith.

The reference lists publication dates of accounts of the First Vision, begining in 1839, thru 1842. The never explicitly stated but often implied critical POV is that Brigham Young either didn't know about or didn't believe in the First Vision, and so it wasn't 'emphasized' until after his death.

I added a tag indicating that the reference didn't support the statement. John Foxe then added another reference, and quoted Bushman:

Most early converts probably never heard about the 1820 vision.

I checked the reference. Bushman is discussing a time period very early in church history when he makes this statement, around 1832. Ok, that's very early, possibly true, certainly no evidence that the FV was commonly taught at that time. Also no evidence that it wasn't taught, but I understand that non-evidence is not evidence.

I also noticed that Bushman had something else to say that put the quote into context:

At first, Joseph was reluctant to talk about his vision. Most early converts probably never heard about the 1820 vision.

I'm not sure of the sequence, but one of several edits I made was to add the first part of the sentence.

Anyway, I then looked at the quote, and looked at the sentence in the article. Still not exactly a match, but John Foxe suggested a direction by his quote, so I modified the sentence to more closely match the references provided by John Foxe.

Although the vision was not published until 1840,[1] by the time of Smith's martyrdom the First Vision had become an important element of the church's message.[2]

I added another reference to support the assertion: http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php?title=Seldom_mentioned_in_LDS_publications_before_1877_%28long%29 www.fairwiki.org - historical timeline of First Vision presentation This article presents 'historical facts' showing a timeline of FV publications from 1840-1877, with at least one publication almost every year, but even more important, specifically responds to the "Before the death of Brigham Young in 1877 the first vision was seldom mentioned in Mormon publications" criticism.

John Foxe restated his original POV as fact, but at least he did it without reverting:

Although the vision was not emphasized during Smith's lifetime nor an account of it published until 1840,[1] the First Vision did not become an important doctrine of the LDS Church until the late nineteenth century.[2]

If anything the new version is less neutral and more incorrect than the old version. He was, however, careful to balance the reference with one of his own, and restated my reference in a manner which demonstrates that he does, in fact, understand WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation:

For instance, the First Vision was not directly mentioned in the sermons of Smith's immediate successors Brigham Young and John Taylor. Nevertheless, LDS apologists assert that the doctrine had become a significant part of the new religion by the time of Smith's martyrdom www.fairwiki.org - historical timeline of First Vision presentation

So, what have we learned? It seems clear that John Foxe does, in fact, understand WP:NPOV, at least WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. We must assume that he simply chooses not to follow it. 74s181 00:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the idea of "emphasis" is what is at issue here. It is open to interpretation. What exactly constitutes "emphasis"? Does it matter that the subject was written about by Joseph Smith 4 times in about 10 years? Is that emphasis or not? And how does time-frame fit in? Was it not emphasized, then emphasized, then not emphasized then emphasized again -- in other words did it come in and out of favor and we are trying to characterize it in one fell swoop? Bottom line is that this is apparently a matter of opinion and so, if it is a matter of opinion, it should be expressed as such, quoting the individual giving the opinion. If there is a counter opinion that too can be quoted. Attribution of the opinions is appropriate.
But...my own view is that it this could be avoided if the section read this way:
Joseph Smith wrote about the vision four times. Publication of his account occurred in 1842, near the end of his life. Its significance among in the Latter-day Saint movement then grew as it was subsequently published in the Pearl of Great Price in 1851 and finally canonized by the Utah Church in 1880. (I got these facts from a website -- they should be checked, but I use them as an example - b.t.)
This completely gets away from "emphasized" opinions and simply states the facts of the matter. "Just the facts ma'am" is the way to neutrality. Avoid interpretation if possible. Let the audience make up their minds. --Blue Tie 02:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


Having re-read the offending sentence: "Although the vision was not emphasized during Smith's lifetime nor an account of it published until 1840,[1] the First Vision did not become an important doctrine of the LDS Church until the late nineteenth century.", it does appear to me that claiming that "The First Vision did not become an important doctrine of the LDS Church...etc" is Original Research. And, as before, the word "emphasized" is a judgment -- an opinion. Again, this is all removed by my wording -- which has no agenda, is neutral, verifiable, does not include original research conclusions, and lets the reader make up their own mind. --Blue Tie 02:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, when the FV became 'emphasized' is an opinion and needs to be attributed, either to a primary source quoting a president of the church or general authority saying "we've decided to emphasize the First Vision", or, to a secondary source with an expert saying "the First Vision wasn't emphasized until year X". 74s181 04:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking back at my edit, I can see I did something similar, I said "had become an important element of the church's message". It would have been more neutral to say "was regularly taught as part of the church's message". 74s181 04:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The thing that changed over time is that the First Vision began to be taught as a separate and distinct event with its own related doctrines, rather than as part of the history leading up to the publication of the Book of Mormon and the founding of the church. For example, 'two Personages' is clearly present as early as the 1835 account, but the significance of this relative to the 'Trinity' doctrine wasn't recognized until later. 74s181 04:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about "four times", some believe that D&C 20 contains a reference to the FV, and on the other hand, some critics don't even consider the 1832 or 1835 accounts to be the 'First Vision'. But if you have a reference that says 'four times' that's all we need. 74s181 04:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the 1838 account was published as part of a history of the church in 1839 but I can't find the reference for that right now. It was certainly published in England as part of a missionary tract by Orson Pratt in 1840, not 1842, this also implies that Orson Pratt had a printed copy with him, which implies an earlier publication. The Pearl of Great Price was originally published as a reprint of various JS, Jr. revelations that had been published in the US but were not generally available to the membership in England. 74s181 04:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, the lead isn't the place to go into a lot of detail, should be a summary of the key points in the article. My thought has always been that a high level outline of the article should be visible in the lead. 74s181 04:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The wording isn't that important to me (although I'd prefer clarity and good writing) so long as lead makes it clear that so far as extant records go, the First Vision was never publicly taught until after 1840 and that it wasn't considered an important doctrine of the Church until the late nineteenth century, say after Taylor's death. Like you say, we just need to find a scholarly reference that says the latter. Hard to believe that someone hasn't written up the development of such an important doctrine.--John Foxe 18:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I still think that the entire second paragraph is a particular critical POV that doesn't really belong in the lead, but maybe we can reach a consensus.
  • What do you mean by 'publicly' taught, as in, "...was never publicly taught until after 1840..."? And, more imporant, do you have a reference that says this? 74s181 01:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You said "wasn't considered an important doctrine...until late nineteenth century..." I agree that in JS, Jr's time the FV was presented as part of the 'history of the church' narrative, not taught as a stand alone event as it is today, this implies a change. Could you live with something like "grew in importance over time", or do you believe that there was a decision made at some point to 'emphasize' the FV? If the later I'd want to see a reference.
Regarding references for these assertions, I think that if it is going to be in the lead it needs to be an undisputed fact, stated in a way that we can all agree on. 74s181 01:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we're at consensus yet, but I think these citations go a long way toward proving that non-Mormon opinion views the current emphasis on the First Vision as a late nineteenth-century development. As for the 1840 statement, I think it can be worded like the Lucy Mack Smith business, that there's no extant evidence that the First Vision was taught before the doctrine was first published in 1840.--John Foxe 09:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The Davies reference looks good, much better than the Tanner ref. I think the phrase 'gaining an influential status in LDS self-reflection late in the nineteenth century' is helpful, if the lead said 'grew in influence' I think it would be more correct than 'emphasized'. I tried reworking this part of the lead but I wasn't happy with it, not enough time this morning, so I gave it up for now. 74s181 12:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "never publicly taught..." I think there is circumstantial evidence that JS, Jr. shared accounts of the FV some years before it was published, but was it "publicly taught" as in, from the pulpit? I'm no expert, I haven't seen any record of this prior to publication, but clearly it was taught almost continuously from that time. I object to the word 'never', it is so absolute, it doesn't seem scholarly or encyclopedic. 74s181 12:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
We don't have to use the word "never" to communicate that there's no evidence for the doctrine having being taught before 1840. As for "grew in influence," I think we'll need more information. It may be that it was a rather sudden development.--John Foxe 13:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to refresh my memory and see how the First Vision is taught by TCoJCoLdS today compared to how it was taught in 1840. I have a copy of Preach My Gospel, this is the current guidebook used by missionaries to learn how to teach the gospel. First mention of the FV I could find was on page 7, following is the fourth of four bullet points on the history of God's relationship to His children.:

Beginning with the First Vision, God has again reached out in love to His children. He restored the gospel of Jesus Christ and His priesthood authority and organized His Church on the earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon is convincing evidence of this Restoration.

The lessons to be presented to investigators begin in chapter 3, titled "The Message of the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ". Sounds like a First Vision lesson, but before the FV is mentioned there are almost six pages following the outline on page 7, explaining the 'why' of creation, the history of God's dealings with man thru his chosen prophets, and the mission of Jesus Christ. Then one page on the FV, about half a page on other restoration events, then a page on the Book of Mormon. The lesson portion of the chapter ends with a section titled "Pray to Know the Truth through the Holy Ghost" which contains instructions on how to teach the investigator to pray to know for himself.

In comparison, Orson Pratt's "Interesting Account" devotes two and half pages to the First Vision right up front. The FV section is a bit longer than in "Preach My Gospel", probably because it is a tract intended to be read independently by an investigator rather than a reference to be used by missionaries. "Interesting Account" then provides a lengthy summary of the contents of the Book of Mormon. "Preach My Gospel" provides an overview of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon but doesn't summarize the contents, probably because the missionaries will normally give each investigator their own copy. 74s181 14:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how TCoJCoLdS is emphasizing the FV any more or less today than it was at the time of JS, Jr.'s martyrdom. Please help me understand the basis of the 'emphasized' POV, that is, make it more plausible. 74s181 14:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What you need is a mid-nineteenth-century sermon or lesson declaring the First Vision an essential doctrine of the Church. In 1845, Orson Pratt declared that the reason why the Saints were being forced to move west was to save them from "impending judgments" on the United States. The fact that Pratt published that statement neither necessarily makes that view widely known among Latter-day Saints nor does it create a cardinal doctrine of the Church.--John Foxe 19:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
If that is true, you need is a mid-nineteenth-century sermon or lesson declaring the First Vision to be unessential doctrine of the Church to enforce your edit. I think this whole business of it being "emphasized" is somewhat of a trivial, OR point almost unrelated to the subject - a hobby thing. What big difference does it make to the subject matter -- "The First Vision" if it was or was not essential doctrine to the Church at an early time or at a later time? To me, this is somewhat like the doctrine of Xenu in Scientology. That it was not one of the first things that Hubbard taught does not particularly matter to its content, nor to its importance to Scientologists. Perhaps it belongs in some aspect of criticism of the First Vision (if it is criticism), but in keeping with summary style it would not be a focus of the lead. Certainly in a detail paragraph things could be kept more neutral by declaring something like: "So and so thinks Mormons are hypocrites because they did not focus on the First Vision until ____."--Blue Tie 22:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Blue Tie, I agree with part of what you're saying. I feel that the 'emphasized' POV is really part of the 'JS, Jr. made it up' criticism, and that its presence in the lead is an attempt to carefully lay a foundation for that criticism. I tried to make it more neutral, and this time John Foxe didn't revert my edit. That is why I am spending so much time discussing it. And it may very well be that the FV increased in importance over time, and if so, that is an important bit of information about the FV, which is the subject of the article. 74s181 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
"The fact that Pratt published...neither...widely known...cardinal doctrine..." Well, yes, but the fact that the Church kept republishing it year after year means something. 74s181 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it would hardly do for the Church to continually republish a statement about "impending judgments" on the USA while the Choir sings "God Bless America."--John Foxe 21:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm sincerely trying to understand, so help me. Maybe you're saying that Gordon B. Hinckley's said "...nothing...is of greater importance than this initial declaration", but JS, Jr., Brigham Young, and John Taylor didn't say anything like this, and this proves the 'emphasized' POV. So in order to counter this I would need a "...mid-nineteenth century sermon or lesson declaring the First Vision an essential doctrine of the Church", or, in other words, a statement by JS, Jr., or by Brigham Young shortly after JS, Jr's martyrdom. Is that your position? On the surface it seems logical, maybe a bit of a 'negative proof' fallacy but I'll have to chew on it a bit. 74s181 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
My current thinking goes this way. The missionary materials of the church have included the FV since 1840, it was treated more or less the same then as today. Maybe we didn't have as many hymns that reference the First Vision then as now, but otherwise, the church as an institution treats the FV about the same. 74s181 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
One possibly important fact is that Joseph F. Smith and all subsequent presidents of the church grew up in the church. That is, they were taught the doctrines of the church from childhood. Lorenzo Snow and all previous prophets were adults when they joined the church, and didn't have the benefit of childhood LDS religious instruction. But I don't think this argument works, as I think you want to place the 'emphasis' during the presidency of Wilford Woodruff, is that right? 74s181 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
74, it seems to me that much of what you are coming up with is OR. Now, as far as I can tell you are not adding it to the article but instead are using it as part of your argumentation. As argument, I do not have a problem with it. But before it can go into the article, it must be citable. --Blue Tie 23:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It's only OR if it is disputed and someone puts it into the article without an appropriate ref, like the current sentence. I've tried to change it on several different occasions, John Foxe resists. 74s181 04:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
All I'm trying to do here is understand what about this sentence is so important to John Fox. I might learn something, he might learn something. Hopefully, we'll both learn something that will allow us to structure the statement in a way that we can both be comfortable with. That is, after all, the essence of NPOV, assertions formulated in a way that allows all parties to accept them as statements of fact. If we can get there the article will be improved. 74s181 04:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
At least now we're having a two way conversation, this is much more effective than what we were doing before. 74s181 04:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not in agreement that it is only OR if someone objects. To me, it is OR either way, but it is just not actionable. In an dispute, we must stay away from OR and any other pov thing. Now, I think it is ok -- in fact it is desirable -- to use OR to try to sway people to a position on a talk page. But I do not think it is right to actually use it, either directly or in a veiled way in the article. --Blue Tie 22:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
"...only OR if someone objects..." I wasn't clear, what I meant by 'disputed' was, if it is a disputed fact. If it is an undisputed fact like 'Mars is a planet', it is not OR even if stated without references. Otherwise I agree with what I think you are saying. My intent with the OR that I posted above was to try to convince John Foxe that something he believed was a 'historical fact' was not, so that we could talk about the proper way to present the POV. 74s181 23:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It would have been helpful had some LDS leader in the nineteenth century made such a nice, flat declaration about the importance of the First Vision as GBH has done, hanging the truth or falsity of the whole religion on such a tenuous thread. But those nineteenth-century leaders had more interesting doctrines with which to occupy their minds and bodies. Of course, I (like the historians of religion that are now cited in the article) don't believe that the First Vision was "treated more or less the same then as today." I think it was virtually unknown for decades after Joseph Smith's assassination and became prominent some time in the late nineteenth century. Right now I don't know what the steps to that prominence were. (I had sort of hoped that Cogden would step back into the article and provide the details.) But I'm going to find them out. Give me a week.--John Foxe 19:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
That statement is quite honest, but it presents a situation where your edits should reasonably be subject to greater scrutiny. Here is the problem: You have just expressed a very strong pov and described your intent to edit according to that pov. You might consider that to be just fine but per wikipedia standards it is a problem. Here is what I am concerned about: Original Research. Specifically analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. This is expressly rejected by WP:OR. And Synthesis. Particularly to advance a position. You can read about it here. Finally, I believe that if you have a very strong pov, you are unlikely to be able to edit objectively and correctly according to wikipedia standards. In previous instances you have had (in my view) serious disconnects in this area, and I do not see how they can get better if you are seriously biased on the article content. --Blue Tie 22:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Blue Tie, both John Foxe and myself are always "subject to greater scrutiny". I scrutinize John Foxe's edits, he scrutinizes mine.<g> To be completely honest, I also check other edits, but not as carefully as I do JF's, because I know just how 'foxey' he can be.<g> 74s181 22:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The biggest concern I have with JF's edits is not 'in your face' POV like his statement above, but rather, edits that "...radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization" (WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone). 74s181 22:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
John Foxe, I'm really looking forward to seeing what you find. As I said previously, although I never agreed with the 'BY never spoke of it' POV I have always thought that there was a difference in the way the FV was treated today vs JSJr's time. But my recent studies as a result of my work on this article have convinced me that from 1840 or so the FV has been right there in the church curriculum. I will also be wading thru some JSJr. / BY / JT discourses and doing some searches on recent conference talks. John Foxe, it would be helpful if as you discover 'facts' you present them here for discussion rather than waiting until you have all your ducks in a row. I will do the same. 74s181 22:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem with scrutiny, Blue Tie. As the only non-Mormon around these parts, I always get plenty of scrutiny. Of course, if I walked off, then only Mormons would advance their POV here. And Mormons are all seriously biased because they regularly confess that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
When I have a chance, I plan to go after quotations from academic scholars of religion. I don't know enough about late nineteenth century Mormon history to do original research, nor are there enough of the proper sort of books available in my time zone.
(Could one of you Mormons please put some of this thread out of its misery and into the archives?)--John Foxe 21:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Cabin

This whole bit about the Cabin and the house and so on, is really esoteric and crufty. I'm having a hard time following it and I cannot figure out how on earth any of the conclusions strenuously follow from any of the evidence. It seems very much like a tempest in a teapot to me. --Blue Tie 00:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an example of Mormons desperately wanting to put religious apologetics on par with historical fact. But, speaking for all the non-Mormons here, I'm willing to eliminate the entire paragraph about the cabin if you can get a consensus amongst yourselves.--John Foxe 01:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand what the apologetics vs historical fact is on this matter. As I said, I was confused by the section. I can probably figure it out but only by going off and doing research away from wikipedia. Bottom line: is this stuff important? It seems related to accurately dating the time of the First Vision but I cannot tell from reading it what I should think of the times or even if any of this matters. I may have to go run off and research it to figure this out. --Blue Tie 03:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an example of anti-Mormons desperately wanting to label their critical POV as historical fact. But, speaking for all the Wikipedians here, I'm unwilling to eliminate a criticism of the FV just because it has been shown to be not as much of a 'historical fact' as JF originally thought. Rather, I insist that this criticism be properly neutralized and balanced so that the reader with questions about the FV can see both sides of the argument and judge for themselves. 74s181 03:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, I thought we had put this particular bit of nonsense to bed. But you had to go throw in that 'apologetic' label, forcing me to 'balance' it. 74s181 03:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, let me try to explain this particular 'tempest'. 'Date' is one of the criticisms of the FV, because the accounts that give a date are not in perfect agreement. This particular argument about the tax records is an attempt to prove that the Smith family didn't live in Manchester at the time that JS, Jr. claimed. However, there is other evidence that shows that the Smiths built their original cabin on the Palmyra side of the line, and later built a frame home on the Manchester side of the line, thus increasing the tax assessment.

This was one of those things that John Foxe insisted was a 'historical fact'. "Tax records don't lie" or something like that. Ultimately he admitted that the matter was more 'complex' than he had thought, and he wanted to remove the entire discussion as he does now. It is my desire that these criticisms of the First Vision be presented in a NPOV manner. IMHO that means, identified as criticism, attributed to a particular critic, and balanced with an apolgetic response when one exists, and I don't mean buried in the footnotes. Or, if the criticism is grouped together then each particular criticsm doesn't have to be identified as such, but it still needs to be attributed and balanced. 74s181 03:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the other LDS editors disagree with me on this, but I feel that if certain criticsms are not presented, then a person with questions about these criticisms won't find answers here and may assume that the criticisms have been supressed by Mormons because they are true. It is my assumption that John Foxe would prefer to delete criticisms rather than have them properly identified and attributed as described in WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation for the same reason. 74s181 03:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand that somehow the date of the First Vision is important either to Mormons or to Anti-Mormons, though I am not really sure why it would matter if the date was off. (I have a hard time seeing that as particularly compelling either as evidence for or against the reality of the First Vision). But, focusing more narrowly, I'm not clear on what was neutralized or how it was neutralized. Basically, there are indications that maybe they built a cabin and then maybe a house or maybe two cabins and a house and that because the house might have been built in 1823 the First Vision must have been after that because -- supposedly -- the building of the house would indicate their move to Manchester (and the geography is not something I am familiar with either, so I cannot tell what all the broohahah is over the border). But... wouldn't it be just as likely that they built the cabin because maybe they wanted to live in it? And wasn't it before the house? Did the tax records place them within a reasonable distance of where he was supposed to have lived? The removal to Manchester... was from ... where? Was it Vermont? I could look this up but, should I have to do that? I do not think I am stupid, nor do I think I am ignorant of Mormon History (of course my opinions on myself are all OR and POV) but I just cannot figure out what is being said, or what it means, especially when I go to the footnote. I MUST go to some other source because, right now, wikipedia is clear as mud. THAT is my criticism of this section along with a question: is this really important or helpful? --Blue Tie 03:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The 'apologetic' POV concerning the cabin is that a cabin was built on the Palmyra side of the property line, around 1818. The Smiths lived in this cabin until a frame home was completed on the Manchester side of the property line, thus the change in tax assessment.
The 'critical' POV is that the Manchester tax records prove that the Smiths completed the cabin as their first residence in 1822, thus the FV could not have occurred in 1820. 74s181 05:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
There are at least three reasons why the date is important to critics.
  • JS, Jr. dates the FV to "the second year after our removal to Manchester", and elsewhere states it occured in 1820. Critics attempt to use the Manchester tax records to prove that the Smiths didn't move to the area where the FV occurred until 1822.
  • The First Vision accounts mention revivals in the area shortly before the FV. There are historical records that talk about different revivals around the same time period. Critics attempt to discredit the FV by bracketing it into a time period when there were no revivals.
  • Unlike the First Vision, the appearance by the Angel Moroni is specifically dated to September 23, 1823 and this date is well corroborated by others. That is, there isn't any physical evidence of the visit, but JS, Jr. told more people about this experience at an earlier date than he did the FV. The accounts mention various activities and events between the two visions, so anything that pushes the First Vision to a later date reduces its credibility.
Good summary, Les. I would only add that if non-Mormons can demonstrate that the date of the First Vision follows the date of the Moroni vision, then the First Vision isn't.--John Foxe 11:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your friendly comment, John Foxe. You said "...the First Vision isn't" - do you mean, isn't at all, or isn't first? I'm just trying to better understand your POV, I realize that you don't believe the FV happened at all, but which is more important to you, to show that it didn't happen at all, or to show that it wasn't first? 74s181 15:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, Les. Honor where honor is due.
Your question about the First Vision is moot. If the First Vision came after the Moroni vision, it neither logically nor linguistically could be the first vision, unless perhaps we abandon ourselves to the la-la land of postmodernism.--John Foxe 19:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
So the date is important to critical efforts to disprove the FV. It is less important to believers, personally, I'm not sure if it occured in 1820 or 1821. Gordon B. Hinckley says 1820, I accept that, but the date isn't nearly as important as the fact that it did occur. 74s181 05:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
What, isn't GBH a prophet?--John Foxe 11:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't you know that "a prophet is a prophet only when he was acting as such" ? Duke53 | Talk 13:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
When Gordon B. Hinckley is speaking in General conference (Latter Day Saints) he is "...acting as such..." His statements are for the record and are considered scripture by members of TCoJCoLdS. 74s181 15:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course he is, John Foxe. I could have said
I can't determine from the historical facts whether the First Vision occurred in 1820 or 1821, but Gordon B. Hinckley, whom I accept as prophet and president of God's true church says it occurred in 1820. That's good enough for me and most other believers, the main thing is that it occurred. It's like the Empty Tomb, whether there was one angel or two, whether the angel(s) appeared inside or outside of the tomb, whether Jesus first appeared to Mary alone, or the disciples in a room, or on the road doesn't matter as much as the fact that the tomb was empty and Jesus Christ did appear in his resurrected physical body after his crucifixion. 74s181 13:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
But you're always arguing for brevity, right John Foxe? So I tried to keep it short.<g> 74s181 14:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't this explained better? In my opinion the 'Date' section should present the possible dates based on the contents of the accounts, and 'questions' or, IOW, criticism about the dates should be moved to the 'questions' section. What we have now is a problem that occurs in controversial articles like this one when you try to present every POV 'in-line', it becomes very difficult to understand. I think that the who, what, where, when, why of the sympathetic or believing POV should be presented without interruption, followed by the give and take of criticism / response. I presented a fairly substantial pro and con discussion here 74s181 05:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I oppose any attempt to fork critical and apologetic sections.--John Foxe 11:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I know, I know, but I am not now proposing a POV fork, and have resisted the efforts of others to do so. What I have argued for almost since the first day I started editing this article is a separate criticism section. During my arguments against your resistance to the use of the words 'critic' and 'criticism' I learned that this article always had a criticism section, but you removed it, see Criticism exists. 74s181 15:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Why do you keep saying that you're not now going to do something? I'm not now planning to turn this article over to Ed Decker; but then, I'm never planning to do that.--John Foxe 19:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
"not now" and "have resisted" as in, you're accusing me of 'forking', I've resisted forking in the past, why would I propose it now? If it will make you feel better, I will join you in a pledge to not fork the article. However, a separate section for pro and con opinions so that each POV statement doesn't have to be individually identified, attributed, and balanced is not a fork, it's just 'good writing'.<g> 74s181 21:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
"...turn this article over to Ed Decker" Interesting choice of words, 'turn over'. 74s181 21:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I should have said, "give up my ownership of this article to Ed Decker."--John Foxe 22:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
If the shoe fits.<g> Anyway, what about a separate section, it isn't fork, so what do you think? 74s181 01:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
John Foxe, you reluctantly stated that a separate section might "...work ourselves out of this box we've talked ourselves into...", I have attempted to compromise with you on this, and although I thought the earlier title "Questions" was more neutral, I am also comfortable with the current section title "Skeptism". Now we have a place for argument and response, both pro and con, I agree with your earlier statement that we should reorganize the article, "...leaving all the versions of the story in chronological order as they are now.." but removing "...all the Mormon and anti-Mormon POV..." to this section. Now you're back to original position. Fine, I can work with this, but understand, WP:NPOV requires us to identify, attribute, and balance each critical or apologetic statement if the POV is included inline. 74s181 14:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, inline argument and response makes the article less readable and is itself a subtle form of POV pushing. 74s181 14:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What about a table that presents different arguments in a very summary fashion, criticisms of those arguments and the year/month/day that those argument say or imply is the date?--Blue Tie 05:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed tables in the past, some have objected on the grounds that such tables would be original research, specifically, a form of synthesis. 74s181 14:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Did Gordon Hinkley give an indication of how he knows it was 1820? I can think of three possible answers: 1.0 Superior records in Church Libraries/Files, 2.)Revelation as a Prophet; 3.) No special knowledge- just repeating. --Blue Tie 13:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
GBH has stated that 1820 is the date of the FV twice [67], [68] in General conference, he didn't specify the source of his knowledge, but he doesn't have to, members of TCoJCoLdS accept his statements in General conference as scripture, see D&C 68:4. 74s181 15:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
A boon to us non-Mormons since he's willing to bet the farm on a date that creates all sorts of problems for apologists.--John Foxe 19:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You've just confirmed what I've been saying for a long time, that is, the reason you added the GBH quote is because, in your opinion, the article (at least at that time) 'proved' that the FV didn't occur, and ending with the GBH quote 'proved' that the LDS church was false. The problem is, Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to 'prove' anything, see WP:NPOV:
Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed. 74s181 21:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The GBH quotation doesn't mention a date. Besides, you can hardly argue on one hand that GBH is a living prophet and then on the other hand, argue that his words, quoted in context, are an unfair attack on the LDS Church.--John Foxe 22:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
In context? According to WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone:
Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.
You reworked the First Vision article so that it subtly 'proved' that the First Vision didn't occur, then you placed the GBH quote at the end that says if the First Vision is false, the Church is false. OIOW, you carefully 'selected' a GBH quote, and then just as carefully 'organized' or placed it into the article in order to 'radiate an implied stance'. 74s181 01:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
If the words of the living prophet, quoted completely within context, can add weight to the belief that Mormonism is false, then you need a new prophet, a new doctrine, or both.--John Foxe 11:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
If the words of the living prophet Bible, quoted completely within context, can add weight to the belief that Mormonism modern Christian doctrine is false, then you need a new prophet, a new an old doctrine, or both. 74s181 12:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I just happen to have some if you're interested.<g> 74s181 12:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Odd business, casting aspersions on the validity of one of your scriptures in an attempt to bolster another.--John Foxe 20:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me? I'm not disparaging the Bible, I said "modern Christian doctrine", I would have said 'mainstream Christian doctrine' but you previously rejected 'mainstream'. 74s181 23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Gordon B. Hinckley's statement as currently presented in the current version of the article doesn't have the problem that it had when you presented it the way you did in an older version of the article. I felt like you were taking my words out of context so I reflected them back at you. 74s181 23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Jensen - Mouw quotes

Both Jensen and Mouw are experts quoted from a reliable source. John Foxe originally added the Jensen quote, I added the Mouw quote for balance. I believe that the Mouw quote provides a good wrap up for the FV discussion. 74s181 03:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Although we have gone round and round on these two quotes, I'm perfectly willing to discuss them again, but you cannot remove them just because you don't like what they say. 74s181 03:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


I rather liked the Mow quote and in my mind I compared it to the final phrase of the last sentence in the John Calvin article -- and thought it was even better in some ways. --Blue Tie 03:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We've kicked these quotes around for several months. The Jensen quote was always a bit difficult to present in context, but I think I've finally found a way to do it, at least I don't think we've tried it this way before. I've placed the Jensen and Mouw quotes back into the article, arranging them with the Maxwell and Anderson quotes in a more logical progression. 74s181 04:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


Reminants?

This paragraph:

Smith said that his First Vision occurred during the early 1820s, when he was in his early teens and prompted by religious revivalism in the Palmyra area that had "commenced with the Methodists."[1] Smith's various accounts mention different dates within that period. In 1832, when Joseph wrote the first account of the event in his own handwriting, he said that the vision had occurred in 1821 "in the 16th year of [his] age", after he became concerned about religious matters in his "twelfth year" (1818).[2] Between 1818 and 1820 there may have been two small Methodist revivals in the Palmyra area,[3] and a large Methodist conference was held in the town of Vienna, fifteen miles from Palmyra in 1819.[4] Nevertheless, Smith makes it clear that the revival to which he referred was interdenominational.[5] A pre-1820 date presupposes that the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists twice sponsored evangelistic meetings within five years, even though Smith reported that the pre-vision revival ended in bitter sectarian strife.[6]

appears to have remnants of previous dogfights left over ... they just hang there for no obvious reason. I suggest the following:

Smith said that his First Vision occurred during the early 1820s, when he was in his early teens and prompted by religious revivalism in the Palmyra area that had "commenced with the Methodists."[7] Smith's various accounts mention different dates within that period. In 1832, when Joseph wrote the first account of the event in his own handwriting, he said that the vision had occurred in 1821 "in the 16th year of [his] age", after he became concerned about religious matters in his "twelfth year" (1818).[8] Smith reported that the pre-vision revival ended in bitter sectarian strife.[9]

Is there any reason the parts I took out are helpful or meaningful? I was unable to decode it except to call it superfluous. --Blue Tie 16:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the code ring. Mormons often argue that Smith might have attended other earlier religious meetings rather than those connected with the well documented 1824 revival—which took place four years after the First Vision is supposed to have occurred and a year after the Moroni vision. The difficulty with Smith attending earlier meetings in the extended area is 1. Methodist camp meetings were not interdenominational revivals 2. a truly interdenominational religious campaign presupposes that the denominations held joint meetings prior to 1820, broke up in acrimony just before the First Vision, then got back together again for the 1824 revival without any mention of the previous discord.--John Foxe 19:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
"remnants of previous dogfights..." This is more of the 'date' criticism. JS, Jr. mentioned revivals and interdenominational conflict, the critics want to prove that the only time anything like this happened was in 1824. They ignore the fact that the entire region is called the Burned-over district because of the great number of revivals that occurred between 1800-1830. The Backman reference shows that multiple denominations in addition to the Methodists experienced significant growth during the 1819-1820 period, this implies that these denominations were also participating in the revival 'fire' in some way. 74s181 00:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
At one point I had added some verbiage to the text pointing this out, John Foxe removed it on 9 September, his comment was "Smith's pre-vision revival was interdenominational, not scattered meetings miles from each other". I didn't notice at the time, I guess I was so busy trying to figure out how to write an intro to the 'Response' section that JF wouldn't revert that I didn't have time to 'scrutinize' this particular edit.<g> 74s181 00:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
So, what did JS, Jr. say about the religious revivals? (emphasis added)
Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.
Hmmm..., I don't see anything about a coordinated interdenominational revival at the time of the First Vision, more like, the Methodists 'caught fire', then the other denominations flared up as well. So, John Foxe, why did you delete
Presbyterians, Baptists, and Episcopalians in the vicinity also participated in the religious fervor, reporting significant gains in membership compared to previous years.
That is what JS, Jr. said, and that is what the Backman ref says. Sounds like a 'historical fact' to me.<g> 74s181 00:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
In the nineteenth-century context, "unusual excitement on the subject of religion" meant a revival, not adding members to various churches in various years at various distances from Palmyra. Smith's contemporary (and early critic) Alexander Campbell so used the term. It's like our earlier discussion of the word "exhorter." Nineteenth-century meanings of words imply things that 21st century people don't hear unless they're willing to look beyond modern definitions. (For instance, Jefferson's "pursuit of happiness" did not mean "search for pleasure" as we might interpret those words today.) Today you can see banners in front of rural churches that proclaim "Revival October 1-7"; I assure you that nineteenth-century clergymen would have had difficulty even trying to interpret such signs.--John Foxe 11:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
"Search for pleasure" is an adolescent interpretation of Jefferson's "pursuit of happiness". I think that my interpretation of Jefferson's "pursuit of happiness" is probably pretty close to what Jefferson meant, and I think that most post-adolescent adults would interpret it the same way. The main difference between Jefferson's time and today is that 'adulthood' comes later for most, and the number of people who never reach 'adulthood' is significantly greater, in fact, we have a entire political movement devoted to perpetual childhood, but that is a totally different discussion, completely off topic.<g> 74s181 12:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
In the 19th century Methodist context "exhorter" was a title, today most would interpret it as a descriptive noun, 'one who exhorts, or attempts to convince by argument'. Either way it is a single word, but "unusual excitement on the subject of religion" is a phrase. I interpret the phrase to mean 'an increase in religious discussion and / or proselyting activity, possibly but not necessarily involving one or more revivals', apparently you interpret the phrase to mean 'an interdenominational revival'. Hmmm, I think your argument fails unless you can point to one or more words in JS, Jr's phrase that have a significantly different meaning today. 74s181 12:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Bottom line, you're saying that back in the 19th century the 'revival' banner would have said "Unusual excitement on the subject of religion October 1-7". I don't buy it. 74s181 12:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
No, sorry, I didn't mean that at all; my argument grounded in linguistic change was obviously unclear. Here's a better argument because easier to understand. The passage you quoted ends in the middle of a sentence with "Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist;..." Here's the rest:

"for notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great Zeal manifested by the respective Clergy who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling in order to have everybody converted as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased, yet when the Converts began to file off some to one part and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the Priests and the Converts were more pretended than real, for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued; Priest contending against Priest, and convert against convert so that all their good feelings one for another (if they ever had any) were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions."

Note the phrases "the respective Clergy who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling" and "let them join what sect they pleased, yet when the Converts began to file off." Reading these phrases, it's almost impossible to argue that these are independent, unconnected proselytizing movements. The clergy have obviously "gotten up" something together where people are free to join any of their denominations once converted. And what else could the converts "file off" from but an interdenominational revival?
The next paragraph in JS-History notes that Lucy Mack Smith and four of Joseph's sibs joined the Presbyterian Church. In her memoirs, Lucy said that she joined following the death of Alvin (November 19, 1823). Joseph says that the revival occurred in the "second year after our removal to Manchester." There is incontrovertible evidence of interdenominational revivals in the Palmyra area in 1816 and 1824 and no evidence for any between them. By every standard of logic, Joseph Smith is here describing the revival of 1824—except this logical conclusion has to be resisted by all Mormons who take Joseph Smith's prophetic gift seriously because 1. Joseph specifically mentions that his First Vision occurred in 1820 and 2. The Moroni vision can pretty well be dated to the solstice of September 1823.
Even if there had been an unattested interdenominational revival in 1819-20, this would presuppose that it broke up in discord but that four years later everything was again sweetness and light, and all sides joined hands for another round of interdenominational evangelism.--John Foxe 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, it doesn't end in mid-sentence in the reference I used (PoGP), I included the entire paragraph, PoGP JSH 1:5. The text you provided is the next verse, it is punctuated a bit differently than what you included above but I don't think it is enough different to change the meaning. Remember, I was responding to the deletion of the statement about the increase in converts among the various denominations so my main purpose was to show that denominations other than the Methodists were involved. But you want to talk about verse 6, so... 74s181 01:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a cursory examination of this particular paragraph taken out of context could lead to the conclusion that there was a a single interdenominational camp meeting / revival that broke up in discord. But go back to the previous paragraph: (emphasis added)
It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it...
I think that changes things a bit. So, here's how it must have looked, according to your single interdominational camp meeting interpretation.
The Methodists set up camp and started their long-planned revival. Somehow, the other ministers had missed all the fliers and didn't find out about it until a member of the Presbyterian congregation called his minister's cell phone. In a panic, the Presbyterian minister called his secretary to cancel all appointments, drove home, and dashed off a quick email telling his congregation to "never mind milking the cows, drop whatever you're doing and head out to the big camp meeting, and don't forget your friends and neighbors, we need to turn out the whole district, the entire region!" He had to call several rental stores before he found one that still had any folding chairs. He printed a few good sermons off on his word processor and went to Kinkos to copy some fliers. He loaded everything into his pickup truck and drove out to the Methodist camp meeting site. The Methodist minister gladly welcomed him and showed him where he could set up. The Baptist and Episcopalian ministers also heard about what was going on and followed suit, but had to go even further to find a rental store that still had any folding chairs left. Before long, people started showing up, the chairs were unfolded, bonfires lit, and exhorters of all faiths started shouting "Lo, here!" and "Lo, there!"
Yes, I know there were no cell phones, pick up trucks, Kinkos, etc. My point is, unless the Methodist camp meeting lasted for at least a month there is no way that the other ministers could have spontaneously joined in as required by your interpretation. 74s181 01:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's another, more logical explanation.
The Methodists had a revival of some kind nearby, it started a buzz. The ministers of other faiths responded with their own revivals, maintaining and growing the buzz. People who had never given religion a second thought started debating religious doctrine in their daily lives, neighbor to neighbor, husband and wife, brother to brother, parent and child. These discussions took place on the street, at the dinner table, at the tavern, sometimes leading to arguments, even fistfights. Eventually, some people made a decision as to which church to join and started getting baptized. One minister wasn't happy with how many members another minister was stealing from his congregation and threw the first rhetorical mudball in a Sunday sermon, and before long, it was a general free-for-all. 74s181 01:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
And then, "In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions" the fourteen year old Joseph Smith, Jr. asked, "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?" 74s181 01:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This seems a better fit to the entire account, but doesn't answer the Lucy Mack Smith question. Are you thinking about adding something about that to the 'Date of the First Vision' section? As in, 'Expert so and so observed that JSJr said LMS joined the Presbyterian church the same year as the FV, but this conflicts with evidence X that says she joined sometime after 1823'. A bit indirect, but if you can find a WP:RS I guess it is ok. 74s181 01:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Right now I don't have an answer for the 'LMS joined...' criticism. A transcription error of a single word could explain it, but that would be speculation on my part. 74s181 01:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you're ignoring the significance of the phrase "when the Converts began to file off." File off from where if not an interdenominational revival? You also didn't address the questions of why there's no mention of an interdenominational meeting in the Palmyra, 1819-20, and how the warring parties could get back together so soon after cussing one another out at this unattested meeting.--John Foxe 18:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are reading it literally. The reason it was called the Burned over district was the great Christian fervor in the area. Most if not all were becoming involved in the various sects of Christian religion and they were joinging the local religions. Do you have any references that supports your interpretation of Joseph Smith's words; it is new to me. In no literature produced by the LDS church have I ever read or heard the idea that it was a single, mulitdenominational meeting. My understanding has always been that it was a period of great revival and revival meetings. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict when I tried this. It is quite similar to what Storm Rider points out:
You don't need an interdenominational revival. If several denominations had their own revivals, the same people could easily attend the various meetings. At some point, people would either reject all denominations, or "begin to file off" towards specific denominations. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 19:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I am indeed reading Joseph Smith's words literally, which is the way words should be read unless there's a reason not to. In Smith's account, clergymen of various denominations seem to have "gotten up" this religious enthusiasm, an "extraordinary scene of religious feeling" (not additions to churches scattered through time and space), where converts could "join what sect they pleased"; yet dissension developed "when the Converts began to file off" (not rejecting all denominations but squabbling over which one was correct). Why shouldn't these words be treated literally? The periods of religious enthusiasm during the Second Great Awakening were not continuous but came in waves.
I would not expect LDS Church literature to suggest an interdenominational revival in 1820. There might be awkward questions about how such a thing could pass unnoticed when Methodist church gatherings were reported. Again, it might lead to questions about how, in less than five years, these squabbling denominations could all kiss and make up, coming together in the Palmyra area for a clearly attested period of religious enthusiasm in 1824.--John Foxe 22:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

AEB 1

John Foxe, I think you're ignoring the significance of the phrase "It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it" 74s181 00:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fifteen miles away in 1820 is not "that region of the country" in an era when fifteen miles was a day's journey.--John Foxe 13:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Fifteen miles - Let's see, many moons ago when I was a Boy Scout, we did a 20 mile hike about once a year. We were twelve year old suburban boys, we rode the bus to school, none of us played any sports, I was overweight. Usually we had a campout the night before, stayed up all night, didn't get much sleep. And we still managed to do that 20 mile hike and get home in time for supper. So, I'm sure that back in 1820, people who worked outside from sunrise to sunset wouldn't give second thought to a fifteen mile journey to hear a new preacher, especially when there was such an "unusual excitement on the subject of religion". 74s181 03:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe it. People like the Smith family worked on the margin; they didn't have time to hike cross-country. And if they had done so, it would have been mentioned.--John Foxe 10:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"...it would have been mentioned..." So you think that most people describe mundane details like, getting into the car, what route they took, etc., when describing life-changing events eighteen years after the fact? 74s181 12:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"...Smith family worked on the margin..." Ever hear of the Sabbath? 74s181 12:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
People didn't usually travel long distances on the Sabbath in the early nineteenth century.--John Foxe 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"...didn't have time to hike cross-country." Thousands of people left their families and homelands, crossed the ocean and risked (sometimes lost) their lives to follow a prophet they had never seen, that's a 'historical fact'. And you think that a farm boy couldn't walk 15 miles for the welfare of his soul? 74s181 12:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
He might very well have; but if it were Joseph Smith, he would not have been shy about telling us.--John Foxe 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
And, how big is a 'the whole district of country'? According to Backman, the Methodists "divided the country into conferences and districts and then subdivided the districts into stations and circuits." Each 'circuit' was serviced by a preacher that could take two to four weeks to complete the 'circuit'. So, if a 'circuit' takes two to four weeks to cover, and a 'circuit' is a subset of a 'district', then how big is a district? Yet, according to JS, Jr. the excitement spread until "...the whole district of country seemed affected by it." 74s181 03:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
All hypotheticals. You'd need to find someone else using this expression in the same way.--John Foxe 10:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Everything above related to the size of the area is OR --Blue Tie 16:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
For purposes of talk page discussion I need do no such thing. For purposes of the article, I already have the assertion of JS, Jr., an 'extant historical fact'. You need to find and cite an expert that says there was NOT "...in the place where (he) lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion", an expert that says there was no 'interdenominational revival' during 1819-1820 doesn't cut the mustard. And while you're at it, your expert should probably also say that 15 miles was too far for the Smith family to travel for any religious purpose, ever. 74s181 12:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
How about Dan Vogel's notes for this page in EMD (1: 58)? "Smith's dating has been the subject of some controversy. The revival he describes, which resulted in the conversion of his mother and other family members to the local Presbyterian church, began in 1824. If 1822 is the correct date for the completion of the Smiths' Manchester cabin, then a revival 'in the second year' would be consistent with the revival which occurred in Palmyra in 1824-25." Vogel doesn't even tip his hat to the possibility that there was a revival in 1820.--John Foxe 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"...when the Converts began to file off." I wasn't ignoring anything, I wrote "Eventually, some people made a decision as to which church to join and started getting baptized." 74s181 00:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But where did they file off from?
I don't know but I'd guess from the churches they already belonged to, that's why the "...scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued..." 74s181 03:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
They didn't belong to churches before the revival. They were converts. You don't become a church member before conversion in the early nineteenth century.--John Foxe 10:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I see, special 1820 definition of 'convert'. So I'll rephrase, "I'd guess from the other churches they were investigating..." 74s181 12:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Joseph Smith gives no indication that these converts were investigating different churches as they would in the 21st century. Where did they "file off" from?--John Foxe 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"..why there's no mention of an interdenominational meeting in the Palmyra, 1819-20..." Because there wasn't one. The Methodists stirred people up, and the other denominations responded. There may have been individual revivals that "...commenced with the Methodists...", but JS, Jr. said "...unusual excitement...", he says nothing about a 'revival', interdenominational or otherwise. 74s181 00:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Even the LDS apologist Marvin Hill "concluded that that great revival referred to likely did occur in 1824, but that lesser religious excitements had influenced Joseph Smith in 1819 and 1820." (Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, 205.)
You need to read your own quote, John Foxe. Hill says that the 'great revival' did occur in 1824, I don't know what the context is, obviously he is referring to some statement by somebody, maybe Lucy Mack Smith? Maybe even JS, Jr. THe main thing is, he also said that there were religious excitements in 1819 and 1820 that influenced JS, Jr. Did you not see that? 74s181 03:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
He's desperate. He's needs something, anything, that might help the Church out of this apologetic bind. So he admits to the 1824 revival and then treats Joseph Smith's words with "poetic license" to make sure the 1820 date gets in there. It demonstrates just how important the dating of the First Vision is to Mormonism. Once admit that Joseph might have been referring to the 1824 revival, and there's a cascade bad consequences for the doctrine.--John Foxe 10:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Was there 'religious excitement' in that area during 1819 and 1820? Where is your expert that says there was not? 74s181 12:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Prove that your account hasn't been hijacked by aliens.--John Foxe 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"...how the warring parties could get back together ..." They didn't get 'back' together, besides, it was five years, a really long time back in the days before movies, radio, television, Internet, etc., when the newspaper came out once or twice a month. Use your imagination, or maybe you want me to write another story? I didn't think so.<g> 74s181 00:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad argument, Les. People had strong convictions and long memories in those days, and religious controversies raged for years over points that moderns would consider insignificant.--John Foxe 13:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you're right, our faster paced life today makes us so much more forgiving and forgetful compared to people of that time.<g> 74s181 03:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"Why shouldn't these words be treated literally?" Well, there was that 'exhorter' thing. Seriously, the only word in the whole thing that we don't have to treat 100% literally is 'scene' as in, "...this extraordinary scene of religious feeling...", and given the statement "...soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it...", a broader interpretation of 'scene' makes more sense. 74s181 00:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that if you take "extraordinary scene of religious feeling" literally, you create some real problems for the doctrinal position of the Church. But (in my opinion) Joseph Smith was there; he saw that "extraordinary scene," and it wasn't a church off in one direction inducting some new members or a Methodist conference fifteen miles away and a year later in another direction.--John Foxe 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line, for the LDS interpretation we have to assume a bit of poetic license for 'scene' and 'file off', while for the John Foxe interpretation we have to ignore 'commenced', 'soon became general', 'region of country', 'district of country', or, IOW, the entire paragraph. 74s181 00:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course you have to assume "a bit of poetic license" for "scene" and "file off," otherwise you'd paint yourself into an apologetic corner. --John Foxe 13:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
John, you continually have problems distinguishing the difference between a fact and an interpretation of a fact. For example, an interdenominational revival is your interpretation of a fact, not a fact. It is important to remember that even facts are tenuous. It was once a scientific fact that the sun revolved around the earth. Facts such as "no contemporary evidence" can disappear when somebody discovers an old trunk in their attic. By insisting that your interpretation is the only valid interpretation, you lessen your credibility. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 14:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've never claimed my interpretation was a fact or that it's the "only valid interpretation"; it's just the best explanation for the evidence available. My position would hardly be affected by the discovery that an 1819-20 Palmyra revival had occurred. But the position of the LDS Church is threatened even if Mormons entertain the possibility that Smith may have been describing the 1824 revival. In other words, I can be open minded while faithful Mormons are limited only to positions permitted by teachings of the Church. Good luck on finding that trunk, Bill.--John Foxe 17:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a "bit" of poetic license is needed for "scene" and "file off", but quite a bit more of something is required for 'commenced', 'soon became general', 'region of country', 'district of country', or, IOW, an entire paragraph. Sort of like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, eh, John Foxe? 74s181 03:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
No, you are using poetic license for those terms as well, taking them in modern, not early nineteenth-century, senses.--John Foxe 10:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying that "commenced" and "soon became general" meant something different in 1820 than they do today? Sort of like "exhorter"? Ok, so what did they mean? I already presented evidence about "district", you didn't like it, so, please tell us, how big was a "district" or "region" in 1820? 74s181 12:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Just large enough to defend a tenuous religious dogma and not a kilometer more.--John Foxe 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Critics"

The word "critic" is POV. I am not a "critic," in the sense that the word means a person given to censure, reprehension, reprobation, condemnation, caviling, quibbling, captiousness, niggling or fault finding. Don't tell me that the word simply means "one who forms and expresses judgments about something." That's not the connotation of the word in English. (We all know we don't want to be around a person with a "critical spirit.") I present only facts to which apologists may care to respond. I am a truth teller. And often, so are you. The word "critic" is POV; let's have no more of it.--John Foxe 19:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a difference between 'questioners' or those who sincerely want an explanation for something they don't understand, and 'critics' whose only interest in hearing a response to their criticism is to disprove the response. I feel the same way about the word 'apologist'. Both sides have those whose interest is to 'prove' the belief they already have. As I've explained on my talk page, my goal is not to 'prove' that the First Vision or any other LDS doctrines are true, it is to keep the critics honest, to show that in most cases the 'evidence' presented by critics isn't nearly as conclusive as it is made out to be. 74s181 21:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
But neutral point of view requires us to identify the source of each POV. As long as you insist on using the 'apologist' label, I feel it is appropriate to use the 'critics' label. If you want to discuss labels that are less 'in your face', I'm ready. 74s181 21:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
One problem with the whole nomenclature business is that while you and I know exactly where we stand, there are lots of people interested in this subject who fall between us on the sliding scale, including most of the people whose books we're quoting. I don't understand how Grant Palmer can still consider himself a Mormon, but I have to take him at his word.
In a sense our goals are similar—though the mirror image of one another. It's impossible for me to turn this article into an anti-Mormon tract even if I wanted to. Come what may, I'll always be vastly outnumbered by Mormons at an article dedicated to one of the cardinal doctrines of the Church. My goal can only be to prevent Mormons from whitewashing or eliminating the major problems with the First Vision story.
For what it's worth, I have no vested interest in the term "apologist."--John Foxe 22:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree that the word "Critic" is pov. Consider, for example, Harold Bloom who, in "The American Religion" described what he did in that book as "Religious Criticism" and labeled himself as a "Religious Critic". He did not claim that the term was negative or implied a doubting stance but rather an analytical and questioning stance. That is not pov. That John Foxe thinks it is pov is more of a statement about him than it is about the word. I do not have a problem with the word apologist either. I do not consider it pov to use the word that accurately describes the actions words and efforts of a person that all fall under the aegis of apologetics. It is not a bad or evil word and it is not pov. I notice for example that Foxe brings up Grant Palmer. The way I see "critic" a person may be a critic and at the same time be a member of a religion. Thus, I would consider the "brilliant" Hugh Nibley to be BOTH critic and apologist. And I do not think that says anything bad about him.
I have been holding back a while and will continue to do so, but John Foxe, I am troubled by your open desire to be at war with other editors, assuming prima facia bad faith because they are Mormons. I do not see anything wrong with being a critic or an apologist -- or with being a Mormon. Mormons have the capacity to be as honest as anyone else. But editing with a chauvinist agenda or presumptions and a sense of superiority is offensive. I will just limit my comments to that but I am bothered by it. --Blue Tie 23:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to be a little more pragmatic than Blue Tie. If we can reach a consensus on alternatives to 'critic' and 'apologist' I'll be happy to use them. But we must have a label to hang on these POVs and experts in order to satisfy WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. 74s181 01:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Just so there is no misunderstanding, I want to state that I am in agreement with everything that Blue Tie said above except that I am willing to compromise on the use of the word 'critic' and 'apologist' if we can reach a consensus on some other nomenclature. 74s181 11:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the connotations of the word "critic." And as for the personal comments about my "chauvinist agenda" and "sense of superiority," I will only say that this page is dedicated to the discussion of the First Vision. When we order a steak in a restaurant, we judge the meat on its quality not on how the cow was butchered or the political opinions of the chef.--John Foxe 20:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly so, but you seem to be judging the content on things other than the content. That is what has bothered me. You have repeatedly made statements to this effect and it is unsettling prejudice against other editors on the basis of religion. Here are the things you have said that bothered me:
  • But I'm the only non-Mormon editing here and therefore, by default, represent the non-Mormon Wikipedia community at this article.
  • I am the only non-Mormon editing here, and I am upholding NPOV at this article for the entire Wikipedia community
  • Mormons are all seriously biased because they regularly confess that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
  • My goal can only be to prevent Mormons from whitewashing or eliminating the major problems with the First Vision story
Do you seriously not see how these statements are partisan, based in prejudice and condescending? Clearly you are a man of unflinching honesty to have admitted such thoughts. And I believe your writing skills are in the very top class of the editors at wikipedia. But to come at an article with an agenda and then to belittle other editors (even obliquely) who do not share that agenda... its... well as I said, troubling. At least though, you are as always as well mannered as you are honest... so that helps a great deal. But still... --Blue Tie 22:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Titles for section formerly known as criticism

First, a recap of what this section has been called.

  1. Criticisms of the First Vision
  2. Criticisms of the LDS Interpretation of the First Vision
  3. Criticisms of the Canonical 1838 Version of the First Vision
  4. Difficulties with the canonical 1838 version of the First Vision
  5. Critical and apologetic analysis
  6. Difficulties with the canonical 1838 version of the First Vision
  7. Critical and apologetic analysis
  8. Difficulties with the canonical 1838 version of the First Vision
  9. Critical and apologetic analysis
  10. Interpretation and criticism of the First Vision
  11. Criticism and apologetic responses to the canonical 1838 version of the First Vision
  12. Historical difficults with and apologetic responses to the canonical 1838 version of the #First Vision
  13. Criticism and Apologetics
  14. Difficulties with the Canonized 1838 Account
  15. Historical problems with the 1838 Account
  16. Criticism
  17. Historical problems with the 1838 Account
  18. Criticism
  19. Historical problems with the 1838 Account
  20. Criticism
  21. Historical problems with the 1838 Account
  22. Criticism of the 1838 Account
  23. Historical problems with the 1838 Account
  24. Criticism of the 1838 Account
  25. Historical Problems with the 1838 Account
  26. Criticism of the 1838 Account
  27. Historical Problems with the 1838 Account
  28. Disputes about the 1838 Account
  29. Possible problems with the 1838 Account
  30. Possible historical problems with the 1838 Account
  31. (no title)
  32. Possible anachronisms in the 1838 Account
  33. Objections to the First Vision
  34. Possible anachronisms in Smith's accounts
  35. Objections to the First Vision
  36. Possible anachronisms in accounts of the First Vision
  37. Difficulties constructing a historical account of the First Vision
  38. Questions about the First Vision
  39. Skepticism of the First Vision
  40. Possible problems with the First Vision
  41. Alleged problems with the First Vision

Now I'm going to make some statements about why I think some of these changes have occured, feel free to correct my impressions. 74s181 14:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  • John Foxe (and maybe others) doesn't like any form of the word 'critic'. 74s181 14:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Editors from the Latter Day Saint movement don't like any implication that there are 'problems' with the First Vision. Full disclosure - I am part of that group. 74s181 14:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Editors without a personal stake in the argument don't understand why this is such a big deal. 74s181 14:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought that 'Questions about the First Vision' was a good compromise. It satisfied John Foxe because it didn't contain any form of the word 'critic'. It satisfied believers because it didn't imply that there were 'problems', just 'questions' to be answered. I think it was immediately accepted, and has been stable for a while. What happened? 74s181 14:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. After that list, I thought "This has really been a big issue!". I had no idea. Anyway, I thought about it. And at first I was going to say something like "Problems with the First Vision Accounts" but I realized that would assume that the problems are valid, something Mormons might not agree with. So I thought some more and how about a new word: Challenge. Something like "Challenges to the validity of the First Vision Account" or something like that. --Blue Tie 16:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I did a content analysis of all those versions. I was going to share the results except I am not sure that I found anything meaningful. However, I note that many of the titles are specific to the 1838 account. This leads me to question: Is this the account that has the most problems? If not, why would that one be a focus? (and is it the focus of these issues?)
There was one title that was structurally different from the rest: "Difficulties constructing a historical account of the First Vision". That is not a good title because it is not a section about the construction of historical accounts and how hard that is. But it leads me to think about the core problem: Harmonizing multiple accounts with each other and with historical documents. This is not altogether unlike the problem of Harmonizing the Four Gospels with each other and with historical accounts. So, is there a title somewhere on wikipedia that deals with that issue -- and can we use that title? Also, I am thinking that the title should be something like: Issues in Harmonizing First Vision Accounts and Reconciling them with other historical information. Its just a wee bit long. --Blue Tie 02:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The 1838 version is canonized by TCoJCoLdS as 'the' version. It is also the most detailed account, and most criticisms are stated relative to the 1838 account. Differences between the 1838 version and other versions, lack of corroboration of statements in the 1838 version are examples of this type of criticism. The article used to have a statement in the lead and in the 'response' section stating the importance of the 1838 account to both believers and critics. 74s181 04:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

For a long time there was a general criticism section, then focus shifted to the 1838 account for a time. Although there wasn't as much of an edit war, I seem to recall that we had much talk page discussion about 'anachronisms'. John Foxe wanted to limit criticism strictly to date and sequence related inconsistencies or, IOW, anachronisms, I think this was to protect his 'these are historical facts, not criticism' position, I argued that there were criticisms within the 'anachronisms' section that had nothing to do with date or sequence, ultimately we got past 'anachronisms', but JF still resists the addition of any other type of criticsm. 74s181 04:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The great thing about the 'questions' title was that to the best of my recollection it was never reverted or argued on the talk page. After going back and forth on several different titles, I changed it to 'Questions', either it was universally acceptable or else everyone was just too tired to argue about it anymore. 74s181 04:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Challenges" would work for me as well as "Questions". 74s181 04:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Validity" isn't quite right, the question anyone cares about is whether it happened at all. All the discussion about this date or that date, etc., are really attempts to prove that JS, Jr. fabricated the FV, not that account A is accurate and account B is not. 74s181 04:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Harmonizing... reconciling" sounds a lot like "Anachronisms" but longer. This is a type of criticsm, it is not the only type. 74s181 04:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


I don't love "anachronism" because it is a word not everyone would immediately know and also I always think of Society for Creative Anachronism. Which, incidentally is probably where Ritchie Blackmore goes these days. But I just find anachronism to be a bit weird. However, I do not really care very much what the title is. I was just throwing my two cents in to help. Whatever other people want I suppose will be fine with me, if its not egregiously pov. --Blue Tie

"Harmonizing the Four Gospels" - careful, John Foxe will be all over you.<g> 74s181 04:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"...is there a title somewhere on wikipedia..." Good idea, not sure how to search for that. 74s181 04:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would think "Critical Response" and "Apologetic Response" would provide a balanced way of grouping the different views. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 16:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I would agree, but John Foxe has made it perfectly clear that he won't allow any variation of the word 'critic'. So we can try to 'kick him out the airlock', or we can come up with something that he is comfortable with. 74s181 12:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
How about "Analysis"? That seems descriptive but neutral. It was tried as "Critical and apologetic analysis", but maybe it would work without "Critical". If we want something a bit more descriptive, then "Historical analysis and response". Beyond pleasing John Foxe, the important thing is to make sure the title we select can encompass all possible criticisms and the response to those criticisms. 74s181 12:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Analysis is ok, if it is not OR, but I would not say "Analysis and Response". I would just say "Analysis". Both are Analytical approaches or should be. Again, I do not like argument by proxy. See my outline idea. --Blue Tie 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "Historical analysis of the First Vision". That will do until we start adding non-historical criticism, then we'll have to think of something else. 74s181 03:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Outline for "section formerly known as criticism" section

I've started a discussion (see above) about what this section should be called. I also want to reach a consensus on how it should be structured.

For a long time it has been a dumping ground. I have repeatedly tried to put an outline in this section, this has been resisted. Recently, John Foxe introduced a bit of structure when he added a section heading for 'Apologetic response'. I thought it might be useful to try again for an outline. 74s181 13:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two questions to be answered.

1. Can we even agree that the section needs some kind of outline?
2. If we can agree that an outline is needed, what should it look like?

I think we need to answer question #1 before moving on to question #2, but some may want to develop a consensus outline first, then have a vote. Personally, I think the process of developing a consensus outline indicates that there is, in fact, a consensus for an outline, but I'm not stuck on any particular sequence. 74s181 13:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

One possible reason for resisting an outline is that it legitimizes the section, and brings us closer to the day when the non-believing POVs can be moved out of the 'what' part of the article. That is, We've discussed having the first part of the article contain nothing but a description of the First Vision accounts, and moving all 'response', both pro and con to the 'response' section. John Foxe described it this way:

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)

After John Foxe reluctantly conceded that this might be a good idea, I did some research on whether or not it this was permissible within WP policy, that discussion can be found Talk:First_Vision/Archive_6#A_separate_section.3F here, but to sum up, here is the problem: (emphasis added)

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.

And here is the solution: (emphasis added)

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.

That's how we got to this section. We will have to be extremely careful when we start moving material to the section. There is an article on the proper handling of criticism that can guide us; it was the source of the above quotes. 74s181 13:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I see resistance to the idea of an outline as a straw man argument against a separate section. That is, if there is no structure, then the section is a dumping ground, a 'troll magnet', therefore it is undesirable, therefore, we shouldn't have a separate 'section formerly known as criticism' section. So, if you think we shouldn't have a separate section you should present a good reason for your position. 74s181 13:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So, what do you think? 74s181 13:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


I like outlines very much. But I am not sure you have to outline the criticisms separately. On the other hand, I sort of hate seeing arguments in an article going back and forth in the same section. But in this case I am not sure that they have to "look" like arguments. Take for example all these things related to the timing of the first vision. Suppose that instead of looking to discredit one idea or to defend another, it was more of a "summary of investigations" kind of thing. The way one might consider archaeological evidence and timing. I had even at one point thought a table showing the different statements and bits of verified information and the resulting date suggested by that information. Then let the readers judge when they think it might have taken place. This does not have to be an argument. It can just be laying things out on the table. However, this approach would not be good if lots of opinion or speculation were to be included. A little maybe, but if there was lots, it would be unmanageable. I could imagine that such a review of information might be useful to both mormons and non-mormons alike. --Blue Tie 19:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Something like this? 74s181 02:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions about the date
Tax records
Revival issues
Questions about inconsistencies in the accounts
Personages
Questions about corroboration

There are other possible questions, this is just a sample. 'Apologetic' response could be 'answers', but maybe that would be offensive, perhaps 'response' is the best response.<g> 74s181 02:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

More like this:
Section: Date of the First Vision
Contemporary references give various possible dates for the first vision.
  • Source 1 says X
  • Source 2 says Y
Researchers have considered the following matters in attempting to reconstruct the date:
  • Critic/Apologists 1 says A
  • Critic/Apologist 2 responds otherwise
Someone came to an exact date analysis of _________


And avoid all that stuff labeled "Questions", "Criticisms of", "Doubts about" etc. Just present the data without opinions and let the reader decide. (At the same time we have to avoid cruft)--Blue Tie 12:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good approach, better than 'questions and answers'. But it seems better suited for an outline of the entire article, not the outline of a 'response' section. Tom Haws may have had something like this in mind when he he was talking about the 'sympathetic' POV. I previously proposed that the 'what' of the FV should be presented using the majority POV, that is, the 1838 account, then alternate POVs organized in a response section with an outline like you've described, Blue Tie. But this has been vehemently rejected. I'm not pushing for that now, but I'm asking, do you see your proposal as an outline for the entire article, or an outline for the response section? I can live with it either way, I just want a clearer picture of the direction you think we should go, and see how other editors respond. 74s181 14:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


I thought of that as being an example of one section, where all of the sections (except possibly the summary) -- or all of the sections that need to, could go like that. So, it was really the way I thought of the whole article. Except instead of quid-pro-quo arguing it was presented as discovery of information and let the readers consider it all and decide. --Blue Tie 16:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am involved in a conversation over at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Originally it started out as a proposal for strengthening the definition of 'plausibility' as used in 'Fairness of tone', and has shifted since then into the more general problem of article structure. One of the other editors there described the problems he's had with the Factory farming article, I thought they sounded a lot like the problems we're having here. He took a look at First Vision and agreed. Here's what we said:

I looked at the Factory farming article. I can see some of the same POV problems that we've been dealing with in First Vision, and Factory farming has nothing to do with religion, unless you consider animal activism a form of religion. 74s181 01:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The irony is that in my view, as an caring meat eater is that the case for humane treatment is better served by a factual exposition of what goes on that cannot be dismissed as animal rights POV-pushing. Further, most of the people who wanted a more neutral exposition of the subject did not disagree that there were major ethical and health issues and wanted these properly covered, but there was a movement a foot to make the article as biased as possible from the first sentence. 90% of the controversy was structure, not giving the subject room to breath, not daring to let one statement go unchallenged for fear that the reader might not read the article properly. I might mosey on by First Vision and see what I think as a confirmed atheist. Spenny 08:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I see your problem. There is a determination in the tone of the article to show up all the inconsistencies. I think it needs to separate those as different POVs rather than make the article hold to a dismissive conclusion throughout, with its tone. Spenny 09:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"...dismissive conclusion throughout, with its tone." Yes, that is exactly right. Do you mind if I quote you on talk:First Vision, "...as a confirmed athiest"? 74s181 12:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


I have just re-read the article and I am surprised I did not see it before, but Spenny is right. There is a sort of backhanded dismissive tone in the article that creeps in here and there. I think it should be adjusted. --Blue Tie 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I am hardly a reliable source :) but feel free to quote me. Spenny 12:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The key point is, Spenny is a self-described "confirmed atheist" and sees the same problems that I and others have seen with First Vision. 74s181 18:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You missed the following stimulating quotation from that conversation: "The First Vision and Factory farming articles are clearly biased, but they don't violate NPOV policy in any objectively quantifiable way." 74s181
--John Foxe 19:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't miss anything, I'm the one who said it. John Foxe, you're always saying that we can't include certain kinds of criticism or apologetic response because it is Christian-centric, and wouldn't mean anything to an atheist. I thought you might be interested in what an atheist had to say about the bias in the current article, especially since you have said that you think the article is one of the most neutral Mormon doctrine articles on Wikipedia, and that you will fight to keep it neutral. 74s181 22:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The article is indeed one of the most neutral articles about Mormon doctrine on Wikipedia, and I'll do my best to keep it as neutral as one non-Mormon can.--John Foxe 10:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Now it sounds like you agree that the article violates the spirit and intent of NPOV policy but because it doesn't violate the letter of the law you'll continue to resist any effort to fix it. And I suppose that if the policy is changed to objectively identify and forbid the kind of bias that currently exists in First Vision, you'll then say that it is an ex post facto law and doesn't apply. Are you now, or have you ever been employed in the legal profession? 74s181 22:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
No. I have a better-than-average knowledge of the law, but I am not now, nor ever have been, a lawyer (or a Communist either—for any of you who can remember the McCarthy era.)--John Foxe 10:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem with this tack, Les, is that you've proclaimed loud and long that we shouldn't bother ourselves about truth because all editing here depends on Wikipedia rules. Now you've agreed that the article doesn't "violate NPOV policy in any objectively quantifiable way"—and you don't like it. Changing the rules is a possibility, but (as you expressed to Spenny), an easier solution is to get rid of a certain pesky editor, "though that may take some time."--John Foxe 10:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
"...may take some time..." It has taken almost six months so far. 74s181 12:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
"...get rid of a certain pesky editor..." John Foxe, I haven't said anything even close to that anywhere in the discussion you mentioned, and I don't think I have said anything like that anywhere else. My primary goal has always been to get you to understand that your presentation of the First Vision is not neutral. Hopefully, you will eventually come to understand this and we can all work together to reshape this into a Good Article that presents all aspects of the First Vision in a neutral and fair manner. 74s181 12:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
"Changing the rules is a possibility..." I want to close a loophole, I want to clarify what is currently a grey area in the policy. The spirit of the law is clear, but there is a weakness in the letter of the law that is obvious from this and certain other articles. 74s181 12:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
"...we shouldn't bother ourselves with the truth...Wikipedia rules...doesn't violate NPOV policy in any objectively quantifiable way..." Wikipedia is a community that works to produce a product. The community has a standard that the product is supposed to meet. The fundamental bedrock of that standard says that Truth with a capital 'T' doesn't enter into the argument, what matters is what people believe, as evidenced by reliable sources. Everything on WP should be true in the sense that it is a true statement of what people believe. WP policy exists to provide objective rules to test whether or not the product meets the standard, and to provide guidelines on how to fix the product when it doesn't meet the standard. There are many problems with this article. Some of the problems are clear violations of the standard, but the biggest problem is its structure and tone. The policy or 'rules' make reference to 'tone' and 'structure', but don't provide a clear statement that I can use to 'prove' that the article must be restructured. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem. 74s181 12:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
"McCarthy" - honestly, I had forgotten the original source and text of that question. I didn't mean to be offensive, in hindsight I can see that I was wrong to ask the lawyer question at all, and I apologize. 74s181 12:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sub page with a harmony?

Suggestion: Maybe we should have a sub-page with a harmony of the accounts, like you often see for the Gospels except using the actual text instead of references (there probably are not references for the first vision). --Blue Tie 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is Joseph Smith's First Vision – A Harmony, a pretty major piece of work, uses the actual text from the accounts. Unfortunately I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source. 74s181 01:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think COGDEN wrote most of the "What Smith said he saw" section which is a composite account but mostly does not use the account text. I am concerned that it could be interpreted as OR, I've thought about trying to replace it with excerpts from the accounts, but that would be a job, and I'm afraid it would be just as OR. 74s181 01:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not worried about OR, if things are referenced and verifiable. I thought a subpage would be good but perhaps an external link is better, if we are agreed it is a good harmony. --Blue Tie 12:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a good job. I think it was John Foxe who originally pointed it out, but I'm sure he'll resist it being referenced in the article, he'll say it isn't a reliable source, and he would be right, it is someone's personal website. 74s181 12:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This comment by Blue Tie about OR reflects my understanding. I recall a statement of Jimbo's indicating that the primary reason NOR was instituted was to forestall self-published quacks. In practice, NOR can also be helpful to remind us to get references and make sure we are following published sources. However, when there is no disputation about a matter, it is not objectionable to ramble on with original prose. In general, the community tends to be overly reactionary about NOR and too uninformed and inexperienced about NPOV. Tom Haws 20:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"flaming spiritual advance"

Les, it's this sort of editing that makes palpable my declarations about Mormon intent to deliberately degrade the NPOV character of this article. Backman is a Mormon apologist, and you deliberately gave no indication of that fact in your edit. Furthermore, no non-Mormon scholar believes there was any ""flaming spiritual advance" in Palmyra during this period--none, zero, zip--the notion is purely Mormon, conceived for apologetic purposes.

Also revivals are not "held" in the early nineteenth century; they "occur" (or not). The word has changed meaning, which was the point of my reference to the hypothetical church sign that said, "Revival October 1-7."--John Foxe 10:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You kept deleting any historical support for "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion" during the 1819-1820 time period. I thought maybe you would respect it more if I included a quote. I guess it is still your way or the highway, or, IOW, "damn the 'extant historical facts', full anti-mormon POV ahead!" 74s181 12:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Gentleman, Blue Tie recently criticized me for saying, "My goal can only be to prevent Mormons from whitewashing or eliminating the major problems with the First Vision story." That's exactly what Les has tried to do here by deliberately withholding the information that his material is cited from a Mormon apologist and is rejected by all non-Mormons. I challenge you to stand up to the plate here and criticize a fellow Mormon for his blatant POV editing.--John Foxe 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I for one see no problem with citing a person as a Mormon Apologist -- or a Critic. Though, I suppose on thinking about it, that per WP:BLP we need a reference that says someone is what we label them. However, if we are referring to "them" anonymously, and everyone agrees then we could use the term "Critic" or "Apologist" as we see fit. But we cannot attach the labels to a person without a reference. But perhaps they can be labeled differently -- say "Professor at BYU" or "LDS General Authority". I think it is right, in fact virtually necessary for a good article to describe the nature of the person giving the quote through some brief title.
On the other hand, if something is rejected by all Non-Mormons, we must cite that before we can say it, unless it is a matter of no dispute.
John, I want you to notice something. I did not challenge your edits. As far as I know, I have not said one bad thing about any of your edits or disagreed with them. But, I challenged your approach to this article and to the other editors. You might think that I am biased if I do not criticize 74's behavior (is he Les?) but I have not seen him express vitriolic pov and harsh prejudices to other editors as I have seen you do. I rarely criticize ANYONE's edits if you have noticed -- his or yours. That is partly because I do not read them very closely (I am not quite so emotionally involved in this article that I am worried about the same things that you and he are worried about) and partly because I suspect you guys might have better or more information than I do. But I do offer my thoughts on how to proceed to build an article cooperatively. I do not think that a priori holding out bad faith toward other editors is helpful to that.--Blue Tie 13:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I am close to certain that John Foxe is wrong about revivals "occuring" or not, instead of being held. I have, somewhere in my files, the diary account of a Methodist Circuit Rider from this time. It is somewhat hillarious in a way -- he describes giving "Old Calvinism" a broadside and in several places equates baptists and calvinists with satan. And in one place he quotes an old muttering baptist woman who describes him as the devil. Its great reading. But in his diary, revivals were HELD. They were even PLANNED or SCHEDULED.
I acknowledge that this is OR, but so is Foxe's comment. The difference is that in this case, I feel pretty confidence in my OR. --Blue Tie 16:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll be interested in the quotation (and its date), Blue Tie. One thing Joseph Smith is doing in the passage under discussion is sarcastically implying that the 1824 revival and the "extraordinary scene of religious feeling" was "gotten up" by clergymen rather than being the product of the Holy Spirit.--John Foxe 19:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It will be at least 10 days before I can even begin to consider finding that reference. I am not home and will not be. Then when I get home, I have to dig this out. Its in some box somewhere. I just remember it because I found it so humorous. But when I found it I was (as I recall) actually trying to track the movements of some Torrey's after the Revolutionary War and came upon this quite by accident. I'm not even sure I saved it all, but I *think* I saved enough to find a reference. --Blue Tie 13:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The earliest OED references to "revival" used in the sense of a series of religious meetings are the following: "1818 J. PALMER Jrnl. 76 The Methodists of Cincinnati are very zealous, and have what they call ‘a revival’ in the country. 1849 C. BRONTË Shirley i, In the Methodist chapel down yonder, where they are in the thick of a revival. 1877 FROUDE Short Stud. (1883) IV. II. i. 166 The number of those who recollect the beginnings of the Oxford revival is shrinking fast."
If your reference is earlier, I'd be glad to submit it to OED, where they're always happy to hear about such things. You'll notice that the 1818 reference is unclear. This might be a "classic" revival or a series of meetings, a revival "gotten up." So I'd think any reference before 1849 might be worth investigating.--John Foxe 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, I thought you might like to know that your recent edit:

Mormon apologists also note that a Methodist clergyman (writing more than sixty years later) called Methodist camp meetings (1819-20) in Phelps, New York (about twenty miles from Palmyra) a "flaming spiritual advance."

has invalidated your 'historical facts' defense and opened the door for every reference from Dan Vogel or any other critic to be attributed in the same way, that is:

Mormon critics note that BLANK said BLANK...

74s181 23:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I believe that is four reverts in 24 hours and 20 minutes. 74s181 23:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, looks like four. I filed a 3RR report. 74s181 02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


I think I changed John Foxe's edits because I tend to think that opinions must always be attributed but uncontested matters of fact should not be attributed unless something extraordinary requires it. To me this is just good writing for an encyclopedia. We assume our sources are correct and only attribute when it is an opinion or if we are arguing by proxy. Which is often a form of OR. --Blue Tie 14:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Time for arbitration?

Here are some useful responses from John Foxe in the "Revivalism" discussion.

Prove that your account hasn't been hijacked by aliens.--John Foxe 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Just large enough to defend a tenuous religious dogma and not a kilometer more.--John Foxe 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In My Humble Opinion, this discussion has become useless.

I've filed a WP:3RR report, but the most we are likely to get from that is a 24 hour page protection, and we probably won't even get that.

There have been a few comments in the request for comment, John Foxe seemed to take it seriously for while and backed off on the reverts, but now he is back to old habits.

So I am ready file a request for arbitration. If anyone wants to offer a reason why I shouldn't do this, let's hear it. 74s181 03:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to remain neutral on the matter. --Blue Tie 13:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong. John Foxe was blocked for 24 hours, he appealed, the 3RR violation and block were confirmed by another admin. So I'll wait on submitting a WP:RfAR to see if John Foxe changes his behavior. 74s181 01:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And I notice (at least I think I do) that you have been civil and have not gone willy nilly and reverted all his stuff. If anything I have done more of that (though it had nothing to do with him or his block.. I just thought some things were not best the way that they were). But anyway... I commend you on your good manners in that regard, not taking advantage of the "opportunity". --Blue Tie 03:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Because I was the one who submitted the 3RR report, I didn't think it would be fair for me to edit the article during his enforced absence. But I'm not encouraged by his latest additions of specific criticisms to the lead. He has also added specific doctrinal statements to the 'most teach' part of the paragraph that are true about TCoJCoLdS but not 'most' other LDS movement churches. 74s181 12:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the Joseph Smith Jr. personality profile

The section says he was quite and taciturn. It says he was jovial and a romancer of the first water. This is contradictory or at least appears to be contradictory. So, how was he? I think the best sources (in order) for this would be: 1) his family, 2). friends who knew him well, 3) acquaintances who had repeated, long-term dealings with him and 4)memorialists who met him briefly or had limited contact. No one else should be able to weigh in on this except perhaps modern biographers who have taken these ideas and commented on them. However, I think that going into lots of commentary detail on his personality is crufty and irrelevant to the article's main purpose. --Blue Tie 13:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Nibley wrote an article on Anti-Mormon writings. Some described him a quiet and taciturn, while others said he was jovial and a romancer. Some said he was tall, others short. Some said he was shifty and wouldn't look you in the eye, while others said he had piercing eyes. I'm guessing you can find sources to back up pretty much what you want. Nibley's point was that if the writers couldn't even agree on what he looked like, how much confidence should we have in what they say he said or taught? -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 18:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
That's annoying. It means we can't even have a consensus on basic things. No wonder this article is disputed. We should apply our attentions on how to present something that is so hard to confirm. Perhaps we can take a look at the pages on the Life of Jesus -- or his birth or things like that, to get a clue on how such disputes might be handled. --Blue Tie 20:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
One of the criticisms currently missing is questions about JS, Jr.'s character. The different perspectives on JS, Jr. would fit into that section. However, the main body of the article does need something about the JS, Jr., he is the 'who' of the FV. 74s181 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I once suggested Virgin Birth as an article with similar problems. Also consider Jesus: Empty tomb and Resurrection. 74s181 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
What we lack is a consensus on how the article should be structured. The article will continue to be 'crufty' until we establish that consensus. 74s181 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Article restructuring

I've brought this up before. There's been a lot of water under the bridge since then, so I thought I would give it another try.

There is a lot of good info in the article, and I include the criticism in that.

But there are many really fundamental problems with the article. It radiates anti-Mormon POV. It is full of NPOV bloat. There are parts that are nearly incomprehensible. The lead goes from summary to specifics to summary.

We argue about one thing, then another, then back again. One editor adds something, another editor feels a need to balance it, then back and forth. I really think this is the biggest problem, we have no consensus on structure.

As I mentioned earlier, I've been discussing this problem at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Plausibility with some other editors. It didn't start out well, but I think I have a much clearer picture of what the problem is. Spenny really put his finger on it when he said:

In the real world, if you are presenting something you say, stop interrupting, hear me out, then let's discuss the issues. Spenny 08:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion of how the article should be structured: Lead - high l \evel summary of the article as a whole, a really brief who, what, where, when. A brief mention of past and present beliefs relating to the First Vision. A brief mention that there is 'criticism', although we don't have to use that particular word, and the general forms that that it takes. 74s181 03:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

First section is a presentation of the who, what, where, when, as neutral as possible. Anything that is disputed, the alternatives are presented without any response. For example, the date. Could be 1820, 1821, whatever Joseph Smith, Jr. has asserted in the different accounts. We say that there is dispute, but don't present the pros and cons of any particular date. Same with the other issues.

I'm not sure about the composite account. I've always thought that the 1838 account is the 'majority POV', but let's not rehash that argument right now. Clearly, others believe that fairness requires that we start with a composite account, or we else start with the oldest account. Either way, I think we need a statement of 'what' the First Vision is before we get into the different accounts.

Then the accounts. Each account section should say something about its own who, what, when, where, then talk about what is different and what is the same in that account compared to others, but still keeping things as undisputed as possible. Or, perhaps the 'accounts' are the best place to start the give and take, criticism and response.

After presenting the who, what, were, when, then we have the response section, how people have responded, both positively and negatively. Positive section is divided up by LDS denonmination. Negative section is divided up based on high level views of what kind of criticism we're dealing with.

I realize this doesn't sound that different from the current article. It is different, but I am too tired to explain right now, so figure it out, or be patient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74s181 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thrashing

To those in the IT biz I say that my heap has become fragmented, I'm having a stack overflow, I'm thrashing.

To everyone else I say that I've reached a point where I have to step back for a bit and take a break.

74s181 12:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm feeling better now, sorry about that. 74s181 01:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not emphasized, part II

The 'AM' (anti-Mormon) argument is that the First Vision wasn't well known or 'emphasized' prior to the death of Brigham Young. The 'PM' (pro-Mormon) argument is that it was taught continuously from 1840.

I continue to be troubled that you view the matter in these partisan terms. What about the simple thirst for an accurate understanding? Tom Haws 20:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I opened with the statement above to remind people about the previous discussion. I guess I didn't do a very good job, sorry. 74s181 01:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there is another explanation. I was doing some searches at www.lds.org, and noticed that while the FV is often discussed, it is not always labeled as such.

That raises an interesting question. Who was the first person to call it "The First Vision", that is, who came up with this label? And when? I don't think JS, Jr. ever called it the "First Vision". So, maybe the 'emphasis' is actually this labeling of the FV. 74s181 01:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well put. Excellent brainstorming and "out-of-box" thinking. I very strongly agree. Here's the search for an accurate understanding. Tom Haws 20:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There are basically three criticisms relating to 'not emphasized':

  1. Brigham Young didn't know anything about the First Vision. 74s181 02:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. The First Vision wasn't emphasized until after the death of Brigham Young. 74s181 02:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. The First Vision was emphasized in order to strengthen faith after the end of the practice of plural marriage. 74s181 02:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are some relevant historical facts. 74s181 02:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

On 9/1/1859, Brigham Young gave a talk where he said that JS, Jr. had seen the Father and the Son in his youth. See Journal of Discourses, 7:237. 74s181 02:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Brigham Young says no such thing. "Joseph Smith in his youth had revelations from God. He saw and understood for himself. Are you acquainted with his life? You can read the history of it. I was acquainted with him during many years. He had heavenly visions; angels administered to him." Young here had every opportunity to say that Smith had seen the Father and the Son. And instead he talks about angels.--John Foxe 14:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here's what Brigham Young said, in context (emphasis added):
I have flattered myself, if I am as faithful as I know how to be to my God, and my brethren, and to all my covenants, and faithful in the discharge of my duty, when I have lived to be as old as was Moses when the Lord appeared to him, that perhaps I then may hold communion with the Lord, as did Moses. I am not now in that position, though I know much more than I did twenty, ten, or five years ago. But have I yet lived to the state of perfection that I can commune in person with the Father and the Son at my will and pleasure? No,-though I hold myself in readiness that he can wield me at his will and pleasure. If I am faithful until I am eighty years of age, perhaps the Lord will appear to me and personally dictate me in the management of his Church and people. A little over twenty years, and if I am faithful, perhaps I will obtain that favour with my Father and God.
I am not to obtain this privilege at once or in a moment. True, Joseph Smith in his youth had revelations from God. He saw and understood for himself. Are you acquainted with his life?
So, Brigham said he was not in the position to commune in person with the Father and the Son. If he lived twenty more years, maybe he would obtain 'that favor' from the Lord. Then, in the next paragraph he continued the thought, he said he was not to 'obtain that privilege at once or in a moment'. What priviledge? The same privilege that Joseph Smith experienced in his youth, 'He saw and understood for himself'. 74s181 16:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No, not the privilege of Joseph Smith but that of Moses, who saw God at the burning bush when he was eighty. Young's words indicate that he had little if any notion of the First Vision. Young speaks about the possibility of communing in person with the Father and Son, the perfect opportunity to mention that Joseph had seen them as a young man, and yet Young refers only to angels.--John Foxe 18:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

On 9/20/1874, three years before the death of Brigham Young, Orson Pratt gave a talk titled "JOSEPH SMITH'S FIRST VISIONS-THE BOOK OF MORMON-AMERICAN INDIANS DESCENDANTS OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL-PROPHECIES FULFILLED". This talk contains an account of the First Vision similar to the JSH / PoGP account, then moves on to the visit of Moroni, translation of the BoM, etc. Although the title contains the words "FIRST VISIONS", the text does not. See Journal of Discourses, 17:278. 74s181 02:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Pratt mentions Joseph Smith's First Vision (in conjunction with a "revival" in "the neighborhood") does not mean that the doctrine was emphasized in the 1870s.
What does 'emphasized' mean? In any event, I think I am ok with what you have done with this paragraph, let me think on it a bit, and maybe some others will have some comments. 74s181 16:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

On 9/2/1883, George Q. Cannon gave a talk that included a short discussion of the First Vision, but didn't call it by that name. He talked briefly about the physicality of the Father and the Son. This talk is referenced in article as evidence that George Q. Cannon led the charge to 'emphasize' the FV after 1883. See Journal of Discourses, 24:368. 74s181 02:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

On 10/7/1883, George Q. Cannon gave another talk that briefly mentioned the First Vision, again, not calling it by that name. He used the FV to illustrate how even after such an experience, JS,Jr. didn't attempt to exercise any authority until he was specifically instructed to do so several years later. This talk is also referenced in article as evidence that George Q. Cannon emphasized the FV after 1883. See Journal of Discourses, 17:339. 74s181 02:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

On 10/6/1890, Wilford Woodruff, President of TCoJCoLdS presented the Manifesto, officially ordering the end of plural marriage. See D&C, Official Declaration 1. 74s181 02:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The point of all this is not to try to 'prove' anything other than that the 'not emphasized' statement is a POV, a specific criticism, and therefore, should not be stated as an undisputed fact in the lead. 74s181 02:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Note - the reference in the lead that says, "Historians have pondered the various phrases of this vision's evolution...", is that Widmer, or Davies? There was a problem with the reference, it probably got messed up during one of the many edits. I looked at an older version of the article, looks like Widmer is wrong, so I removed him. 74s181 01:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Bloated lead

The lead was getting bloated with details that were not covered as well in the body of the article. So I moved a couple things from the lead to the body and added a short summary to the lead. 74s181 04:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten and restored some of this material. Right from the get-go it's important to note the growing importance of the First Vision during the nineteenth century and the unique LDS doctrines that it supports. Perhaps we also need further emphasis on these matters later in the article.--John Foxe 10:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
"...important to note..." I agree. However, the lead should not contain more detail than the body of the article, and with these two quotes it does. 74s181 12:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Let's just stick with the single phrase: "it did not become an important doctrine of the LDS Church until the late nineteenth century."--John Foxe 14:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fairness of tone in the lead

There is also the question of tone. John Foxe, I'll try to illustrate what I think you're trying to do. From the Last Supper:

Many Christians describe this as the institution of the Eucharist, a ritual act of symbolic cannibalism. Some Christians go even further and believe that they are consuming the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, through the miracle of transubstantiation.

Is there anything factually incorrect in this statement? Do you think I could not find references to support it? And it is certainly more relevant to the subject of the Last Supper than the statements about the nature of God that you added. But, is it 'fair'? 74s181 12:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not NPOV compliant. Not sympathetic enough. At least not for an intro. Tom Haws 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
My purpose with the statement on the Eucharist was to illustrate how statements that are factually correct and beyond dispute can be unfair and lead the uninformed reader to a negative impression of the subject. John Foxe had done something similar in the lead of the FV, I was trying to convince him to stop it. 74s181 11:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And there you go again, John Foxe, another revert. I'll try again, something different. 74s181 00:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And again. There are only so many different ways that I can respond to your reverts before my edits start looking like reverts as well. 74s181 11:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And again, a couple of times. We need to discuss this, John Foxe. 74s181 00:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify James B. Allen reference in the lead

Mormon historian James B. Allen further notes that "none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830s, none of the Church publications in that decade and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story in convincing fashion."

James B. Allen, "The Significance of Joseph Smith's 1st Vision in Mormon Thought," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 7 (1980), 30.

I am unable to verify this reference. There were four issues in 1980, there is no issue seven. Volume seven was not published in 1980. A search on the 'Dialogue' website for keywords in the title yielded nothing. I'm not saying that the article doesn't exist, I'm saying that the reference is wrong, that makes it hard to verify what Allen said.

I would have tagged this, but 'failed verification' and 'verify source' don't quite fit. 74s181 11:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, while looking for this I did learn that James B. Allen was a pretty controversial figure. 74s181 11:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is in volume 1 not volume 7 (I can see how those numbers might have been confused), and the year is 1966 rather than 1980. (The volume and year are correct in the bibliography.)--John Foxe 14:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Volume 1, number 3. The quote is inaccurate and out of context, changing the meaning. I've italicized the words not included in the article excerpt, and boldfaced those that were added. I'm not sure what to do with the words that were rearranged.
The fact that none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830's, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision is in convincing fashion evidence that at best it received only limited circulation in those early days.
74s181 02:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for what was almost certainly my transcription error. But I think if there's any change of meaning, it's trifling.--John Foxe 10:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
From how I read the two versions, the only substantive change was the shift in what "convincing" modifies: Allen's original text properly reads as "the fact...is...convincing...evidence" whereas the paraphrase reads as "none of the writings...mentions the story in convincing fashion". The latter version suggests that the story was indeed mentioned in certain places but in such an unreliable way as to make even a Mormon historian deem them unconvincing. But I think this shift in meaning by John Foxe was unintentional and in good faith; it's hard to paraphrase something and capture the exact nuance of the original quote. That said, since the original is not much larger than the paraphrase, it's better to have the full original quote, in my opinion. alanyst /talk/ 14:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Tom Haws 20:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Cruft

I think that the many various versions of the first vision being discussed in detail and so on are crufty. --Blue Tie 12:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you mean the way they are discussed, or that they are discussed at all. 74s181 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There has been previous debate on the 1838 account and WP:UNDUE. 74s181 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

One side argues that TCoJCoLdS is the only church that has 'canonized' the 1838 account, so focusing on that account or presenting it first (out of historical sequence) is giving undue weight to a particular POV. 74s181 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The other side argues that TCoJCoLdS is the big dog, so not focusing on the 1838 account is giving undue weight to minority POVs. 74s181 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that its just too much detail. A subpage would be fine for the details. I think that either the most extensive version or the last version (whichever is more suitable) should be used as the base text. --Blue Tie 23:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Treating the versions in historical order is both more NPOV and makes better sense to non-Mormons because the differences in the stories reflect Joseph's changing theology over time (which should perhaps be more strongly emphasized). To privilege the 1838 account is POV because it bows to religion dogma. A subpage would be a prohibited fork because it would be accomplished for what all non-Mormons here would regard as an ideological purpose. In any case, if one First Vision story were to be chosen as a base, it should be the first because that one was closest to the event.--John Foxe 10:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This is nonsensical reasoning to me. This article is not about Joseph Smith's theology. The need to bring that into this article is the reason for the cruft and detail... a separate agenda. You should take that to whatever page deals with that issue. This article is just about the first vision. That is all. There is no reason to "priviledge" an account, but just use the one that is the most complete. I do not even know which one that is. But I believe that if I were to relate a story about something out of my history, the one with the most detail would be the one I would expect to be the most informative. But we could also reference a harmonized account -- as I said -- on a subpage. That works best for me.
John, you are running to a negative agenda campaign. And an uninvolved editor who just visited to comment mentioned that the whole article reeks of it. I re-read it after he commented and I realized he was right. You need to tone down your pov edits. And it is clear that they are flagrantly pov from your comments and it is clear that it is a campaign. You need to stop that; its just wrong. --Blue Tie 15:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, Blue Tie. While it's true that I'm the only non-Mormon editing here, I have no agenda beyond preventing Mormons from obfuscating the difficulties with the canonical First Vision story while maintaining an article that is clear and well written. There's no "cruft" in this article. It's one of the most balanced, NPOV articles on Wikipedia about a Mormon doctrine.--John Foxe 21:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
John, phrases like "preventing Mormons from obfuscating the difficulties with the canonical First Vision story" and edit summaries that state "reversed an attempt at Mormon whitewash" are inconsistent with the Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy. If you expect others to assume that your intentions are good here, please return the same courtesy to others. From your contributions, it appears that you have some connection with Bob Jones University, which suggests that you may have some interest in "disproving" a competing religion. If that's the case, you have no justification for complaining about Mormon "whitewash" here while the brush you wield is loaded with tar. Please, let's mutually assume the best of motives while acknowledging that our initial perspectives and backgrounds color how we view this subject. alanyst /talk/ 21:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Although I've been the only non-Mormon editing at this article for over a year now, it has become one of the most balanced, NPOV articles about a Mormon doctrine on Wikipedia despite the fact that Mormons have repeatedly joined forces against me in an attempt to insert Mormon POV and to attack me personally. This article, not John Foxe, should be the focus. It's our common duty to eliminate POV whether Mormon or non-Mormon. alanyst, if you are a Mormon who wants to work towards NPOV—and from what I've observed so far, you are a careful, fair-minded person—we should join to improve this article. I gladly extend my hand across the ether.--John Foxe 10:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest to anyone who thinks I have an editing agenda here that they take a look at Bob Jones University, which is another fine NPOV Wikipedia article on which I've worked for more than a year. For instance, read the the section on "Politics" or "Race" and see if you think these sections could have been written by the BJU public relations department—or by its opponents. I realize that there are differences between these two articles, but I find it striking that over there, I have rarely met concerted attempts at POV pushing. I mostly just need to keep abreast of new developments and patrol for vandalism. It's a whole different ballgame over here....--John Foxe 14:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
You mean, like this? 74s181 00:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[Outdent.] John Foxe, the assertion that "the differences in the stories reflect Joseph's changing theology over time" is one possible conclusion from the historical evidence, but not the only one, and reflects only one of the points of view relevant to the article. So it would be improperly privileging that point of view to base the presentation on that notion. That said, if each of the accounts is to be presented separately rather than some point-by-point harmonizing study, then the only ways of ordering the accounts that make sense are (1) by chronology, (2) by size (amount of detail), or (3) by author (and then a secondary ordering by (1) or (2) since several accounts were given by Joseph Smith). I think my first preference would be #3: to present the accounts given directly by Joseph Smith first, in historical order, and then a historical ordering of all others' accounts. This ordering privileges the eyewitness accounts above the secondary witness accounts, and within each group presents them in an order that the reader can follow. If the grouping by author is not to be adopted, then I support a historical ordering over all accounts per John Foxe, albeit for stylistic rather than theological reasons. alanyst /talk/ 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with your #3 except that then we will then have to argue again over the Cowdery account, which technically Joseph didn't write but which, more than arguably, he did—or at least knowingly let stand without correction (except for providing yet another possible date for the event).--John Foxe 11:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

John, my friend. It's completely inappropriate and either dishonest or misinformed for you to continually refer to yourself as "the only non-Mormon" editing this article, even if you can prove that it is "technically" true. You are consciously and explicitly pitting yourself against every other editor here, even those whose proclivities with regard to the LDS Church probably lean more in your direction. Please stop referring to yourself in that way. I can't tell from Blue Tie's actions and words whether he is LDS. And I will bet you that many of the LDS editors have moments they wonder what color of LDS I am. Partisan approaches by any of us are inappropriate. I am as prone to error here as the next editor, and I have to continually guard against any personal tendency of mine to "show" the LDS readers this or that about "how things really came about". You know well my POV with respect to this. Please stop painting yourself as one against the cabal. It's not healthy and it's not reality and it's not helpful. Tom Haws 21:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I'm being simplistic. Although no other editor has declared that he's a non-Mormon, there are many flavors of Mormonism represented here. Nevertheless, it seems to me when the more conservative fellows get a bee in their bonnet about changing this article, the less conservative either support them or tend to disappear. As for Blue Tie, no non-Mormon would quote Harold Bloom when discussing a Mormon article; I think he just enjoys the persona of the honest broker.--John Foxe 22:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"...Joseph's changing theology over time..." This is a POV that should be represented, it is not a fact. 74s181 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"...privilege the 1838 account is POV because it bows to religion dogma..." No, it would just be acknowledging what the majority of believers and non-believers agree is the most important version, per WP:UNDUE. 74s181 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"A subpage would be a prohibited fork..." Probably, but this may be the only way to present the believer POV in a fair and accurate manner. 74s181 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"...if one chosen, it should be the first..." That would be the 1830 reference, not very useful. 74s181 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"I have no agenda..." I think your agenda is clear. 74s181 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"...obfuscating the difficulties with the canonical First Vision story..." I don't think anyone wants to 'obfuscate' anything except you, John Foxe. 74s181 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"...clear and well written..." It is not. 74s181 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"...one of the most balanced, NPOV articles on Wikipedia about a Mormon doctrine..." Repeat a lie a thousand times... You're getting close. 74s181 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"...Mormons have repeatedly joined forces..." I think this happened once. 74s181 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"...insert Mormon POV..." I think the Mormons editing this article have removed or prevented the addition of much more pro-Mormon POV than you have, John Foxe. 74s181 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"This article, not John Foxe, should be the focus." I agree. But your behavior makes it difficult to focus on anything else. 74s181 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe

I have an interest in this article, but I haven't edited the actual article much. I do, however, check on the changes and on this talk page. I thought that it was an intriguing assertion that John Foxe made that he is the only non-Mormon who has been editing this page, so I decided to see. As I am writing this paragraph, I have only checked the affiliation of John Foxe, but I do know about some other editors. I do not now how it will come out, but here are the results, as self-identified on their user page:

Unidentified: John Foxe, Blue Tie, FyzixFighter, Alanyst, Snocrates, Storm Rider, Gaius Cornelius|, Sesmith, Tabletop, Jade Knight, Meowy, John Broughton and Slp1
LDS: 74s181, Visorstuff, Wrp103, Hawstom

FYI, these are those who have edited the article page within the most-recent 500 edits. I didn't count any anonymous editors or 'bots. There are none of my own edits in this sample. The results are inconclusive, so John Foxe's hypothesis can be neither proved nor disproved.

I did this because there was (about a year ago?) in another LDS article another editor complaining about the Mormon cabal conspiring to silence him, but it turned out that the first person who reverted his edits is a self-identified atheist. — Val42 05:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I know it is usually improper to modify another's comment on a talk page, but I moved my entry from Unidentified to LDS. A number of other editors in unidentified are LDS as well. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 12:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Me too. Tom Haws
Wow, John Foxe is "unidentified." Who would have guessed? Maybe you should nominate me for the Fawn Brodie Memorial "Neutrality in Scholarship" Award.--John Foxe 12:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we can safely assume that John Foxe is not LDS, but we don't know anything else about him. Sometimes he argues from an athiest POV, sometimes evangelistic, sometimes conservative protestant, whichever best fits the argument he is trying to make. I don't think I have ever seen him take a catholic position. Not knowing his personal POV makes it difficult to reach consensus with him. He has ignored queries, so I think this is intentional. 74s181 14:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that FyzixFighter, Storm Rider, Hawstom, Sesmith, Jade Knight are now, or have in the past been LDS. 74s181 14:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I am, regardless of my POV. Tom Haws 15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Folk Magic

I see references to digging for money. Did the Smiths also practice water Dowsing or other things like that? --Blue Tie 16:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The treasure seeking is important to critics because they want to tie the account of the the Golden plates / Book of Mormon to treasure seeking. Only possible connection to dowsing that I am aware of is that JS, Jr. found a seerstone while digging a well for a neighbor. I don't think anything is recorded about whether or not JS, Jr. or any other members of the Smith family had used any kind of 'magic' to select the spot for this particular well. Other than this, I don't recall seeing anything that would suggest that JS, Jr. practiced water dowsing. 74s181 21:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Review by Community of Christ adherent Blair Bryant

By Blair Bryant:

"I will be glad to read your article and give you feedback from the CofChrist perspective. But our church does not tell us what to believe. We do not have a creed. So, when I give you a perspective, you must be aware that it will be MY perspective as a member of the CofChrist rather than a definitive statement about what the CofChrist 'believes.' Nevertheless, in most areas, we are pretty homogeneous in our beliefs."

"From my perspective, The First Vision is a good example of how the LDS church has taken a historic event and come to some definite conclusions regarding the nature of the godhead. Our church does not do that and consequently there is a rather broad spectrum of beliefs as to whether there are Three with one purpose or One in multiple manifestations. Gordon Hinkley would not agree with my position."

"LATER" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.76.199 (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"I have now read the entire article and must say, "Well Done!" You know far more about the subject than I do and it is apparent that you are trying to treat the subject with objectivity rather than based on dogma."

"As a member of the CofChrist, I think you did a credible job of giving slightly different viewpoints of the different 'flavors' of the Restorationist movement. I see no real problems with the statement you made about the CofChrist. But, I would suggest that the parts you emphasized in the first paragraph regarding the doctrines of plurality of gods and God having flesh and bone, should be shown in different viewpoints of the different denominations." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.76.199 (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Evolving importance

Note that this is a continuation of the discussion begun in Not emphasized and continued in Not emphasized, part II

I moved this to the criticism section and put it next to the other couple of paragraphs on this topic. There is some repetition, I wanted to give someone who knows more about this particular criticism a chance to clean it up. 74s181 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved it back because it's not criticism (except to Mormons) and tried to eliminate repetition.--John Foxe 10:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Within the 'response' section there is the believing response and the non-believing response. Right now the non-believing response is called 'Criticism of the First Vision'. 74s181 11:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Of the 'Evolving importance' section, John Foxe wrote: "...it's not criticism (except to Mormons)..." Well, duh. The 'Evolving importance' section could be neutral, but right now it is written as a non-believing response, a criticism. The tone says 'something as important as this should have been shouted from the housetops, it wasn't, therefore, JS, Jr. made it up'. It belongs in the criticism section. 74s181 11:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Er, it doesn't say that to me. To me it says, "The current LDS Church places more emphasis and different interpretation on the vision than did Smith, his associates, or any of his contemporaries." I see nowhere in the tone or the content any hint that the vision wasn't a real experience. Tom Haws 15:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this is no more true or false than "The current LDS Church places more emphasis and different interpretation on the Book of Mormon than did Smith, his associates, or any of his contemporaries, prior to the first publication of the Book of Mormon." The implication is revisionism, but in fact, the First Vision is no more or less important today than it was at the time of JS, Jr.'s death. 74s181 16:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any references for that? I sincerely am not aware of that fact. Tom Haws 23:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I shouldn't have said "in fact", it is my opinion. I know that there is little evidence that the FV was well known prior to 1840, and I know that some experts say that the FV is more emphasized today than it was at the time of JS, Jr's martyrdom. I've been looking for 'historical facts', here's a couple that I found this evening.
  • Now We'll Sing with One Accord, a hymn published in the first LDS hymnal in 1835 outlines the major events of the restoration, begining with the FV. So I guess that at least W. W. Phelps had heard something about the FV before 1835, and I guess that all who sang this hymn became familiar with this second person account of the FV, well before 1840.
  • Praise to the Man, another hymn by W. W. Phelps was written in 1844 at the time of JS, Jr's death, and also mentions the FV.
  • Later hymns also refer to the FV, including Joseph Smith's First Prayer which is entirely about the First Vision, written by George Manwaring who joined the church in 1871 and died in 1889. Not sure when he wrote this hymn, but he died a year before the Manifesto, which, BTW, was supposed to be the reason for 'emphasizing' the FV.
As I said back in the Not emphasized, part II section, I'm not trying to prove that the First Vision was not emphasized later, but clearly such a statement is a POV, a disputed fact. 74s181 01:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing of the First Vision in Phelps' hymns. His reference is to the Moroni vision. An early LDS survey of LDS hymnology notes how strange it is that no early LDS hymns mention the First Vision. (Maybe I need to find that reference and include it in the article.) I've looked for the date of George Manwaring's text but haven't been able to find it as yet.--John Foxe 14:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The current versions of these hymns can be found here. As I said, "Now we'll sing with one accord" summarizes the restoration:
Verse 1 "Now we’ll sing with one accord, For a prophet of the Lord, Bringing forth his precious word, Cheers the Saints as anciently. When the world in darkness lay, Lo! he sought the better way, And he heard the Savior say, “Go and prune my vineyard, son!”"
Verse 2 is about the restoration of the priesthood.
Verse 3 is about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.
Verse 4 is about the gathering, i.e., the work ahead.
Yes, the 'quote' is poetic license, but nothing in verse 1 about Moroni, angels, or the Book of Mormon. If you like, I'll provide scriptural references to the PoGP FV account for the highlighted phrases.
Praise to the Man:
"Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah! Jesus anointed that Prophet and Seer. Blessed to open the last dispensation, Kings shall extol him, and nations revere." 74s181 15:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
A capsule summary of the doctrine of the First Vision. Joseph spoke with Jesus Christ, who set him on his mission. Again, nothing here or in the rest of the hymn about Moroni, the Book of Mormon, or angels, although the last phrase is a reference to Moroni's prophecy. 74s181 15:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the hymn references. The "Lovely Morning" one is helpful. It appears the Rocky Mountain Saints may have been singing about the FV in the late 1800's. Not perfect, but it's a start. We could reference that in the article. Anything else? Tom Haws 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
So, "Lovely Morning" is helpful, I guess that means you don't think the other two have anything to do with the FV? 74s181 00:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
George D. Pyper says specifically in Stories of Latter-day Saint Hymns (1939), 34, that George Manwaring was the first to write a hymn about the First Vision. Frustratingly, he mentions the first performance without giving the date.--John Foxe 20:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that "An Angel from on High" is about Moroni and the BoM. The Pyper quote you provided says "none of the first song writers wrote intimately of the first vision", I guess "Lovely Morning" is "intimately" about the FV. However, this doesn't rule out writers of early hymns that mention or refer to the FV, even if they don't write "intimately" about it. Like, for instance, "Now we’ll sing with one accord". 74s181 00:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Apologists can at least claim that to be true. But Non-Mormons will probably find those references quite "unintimate."--John Foxe 12:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
And, BTW, thanks for cleaning up the redundancies. 74s181 11:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. The "evolving importance" section is perfectly neutral except for those who find their religious beliefs challenged by documented facts. In your opinion the tone is unfair. But your opinion is just that. You provide no objective proof.--John Foxe 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You seem very certain that you know what would constitute 'objective proof' of unfair tone, please share this with the rest of us. WP:NPOV desperately needs such a definition. You would be doing WP a real service if you could fill this gap, independent of whether or not this particular section is 'unfair'. 74s181 03:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have no objective proof that the earlier arrangement is unfair, then you should leave it alone. We are about proof here.--John Foxe 14:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You said, provide objective proof. I said, define objective proof. You said, provide objective proof. I'm again saying, I can't provide it until you define it. 74s181 15:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You believe the tone of the section is unfair. Prove it. The burden's on you. I belive the tone is perfectly NPOV unless shown otherwise.--John Foxe 19:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You believe the tone of the section is fair. I don't ask you to prove that it is, I only ask you to define what you would accept as 'objective proof'. Otherwise, it is a matter of opinion either way. 74s181 00:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can provide objective proof that the tone is unfair, then we're at sea. Everything in the article can be changed because you claim it has an unfair tone. "Unfair tone" trumps all WP rules because it can be used anywhere without even a nod to proof. You only need declare it to be so, and it is.--John Foxe 11:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My comment above was about the long-standing version of the paragraph. I find the new version of the "evolving importance" paragraph to be a deterioration. Its tone is indeed poor, and it is less informative in spite of being better referenced. I vote for a revert to the long-standing incarnation. Tom Haws 15:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current paragraph needs more work but it is factually more correct than the old version. Let's keep working on it, we can always flush it, but if we revert now then the whole process starts over. 74s181 01:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The following observation was brought to you by the department of redundancy department. 74s181 04:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Prior to the formal organization of the church in 1830, Smith's status as a prophet was primarily derived from his association with the Book of Mormon. There is little evidence that Smith spoke about the First Vision for at least a decade after it was said to have occurred, but he recorded several accounts of the First Vision that were known by several of his associates during the decade following the organization of the church. An account written in 1838 or 1839 was first published in 1840 and continuously thereafter,[2] but historians of religion regard the "unique position attained by the 1st Vision in Mormon history" to be "a development of the last half of the 19th century."[3]

How the vision story has been presented

The importance of the First Vision within the Latter Day Saint movement evolved over time. Early adherents were unaware of the details of the vision until 1840, when the earliest accounts were published in Great Britain. An account of the First Vision was not published in the United States until 1842, shortly before Joseph Smith's death. Smith had previously discussed the vision privately in church histories and in his diary, but his status within the movement as a prophet and a seer arose from other visions and revelations and from what he said was his ability to translate ancient documents such as the Book of Mormon. Because the story of the First Vision was not published until twenty years after the canonical date of its occurrence, several second hand accounts conflate the First Vision with Smith's 1823 vision of the angel Moroni and the golden plates.
There is little evidence that Smith discussed the First Vision publicly prior to 1830.

Historians of religion

According to historians of religion, the importance of the First Vision within the Latter Day Saint movement evolved over time. Early adherents were unaware of the details of the vision until 1840, when the earliest accounts were published in Great Britain. An account of the First Vision was not published in the United States until 1842, shortly before Joseph Smith's death. Smith had previously discussed the vision privately in church histories and in his diary, but his status within the movement as a prophet and a seer arose from other visions and revelations and from what he said was his ability to translate ancient documents such as the Book of Mormon.

So, what's the deal? Why is this particular POV so important that we have to repeat it three times? 74s181 04:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. There's no evidence that switching the material makes anything clearer or more accurate. If there's redundancy, it can be handled otherwise. Let's stick with referenced historical facts until additional evidence is manifest.--John Foxe 14:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear, these are not proposed changes. These three sections exist in the article today, are highly redundant. I would have fixed them but I'm sure you wouldn't like my approach and would revert my edits. So, you fix them. 74s181 15:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, right. See what you think of my handiwork.--John Foxe 19:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much change. 74s181 00:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead

There is little evidence that Smith spoke about the First Vision for at least a decade after it was said to have occurred,... historians of religion regard the "unique position attained by the 1st Vision in Mormon history" to be "a development of the last half of the 19th century."

How the vision story has been presented

The importance of the First Vision within the Latter Day Saint movement evolved over time. There is little evidence that Smith discussed the First Vision publicly prior to 1830...

Evolving importance

The importance of the First Vision within the Latter Day Saint movement evolved over time. Early adherents were unaware of the details of the vision until 1840, when the earliest accounts were published in Great Britain...it did not become an important doctrine of the LDS Church until the late nineteenth century.[

Criticism of the First Vision

The First Vision was not emphasized in the sermons of Smith's immediate successors...Non-Mormon historians of religion believe that the emphasis on the vision in LDS theology was a "'late development,' only gaining an influential status in LDS self-reflection late in the nineteenth century."

I missed one last time, sorry. So, the 'not emphasized' POV is presented in four separate places in the article, with only slight variation. Why is this so important to you, John Foxe? 74s181 00:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried again to eliminate some of the redundancies. (I think some of them must have been created as paragraphs got moved back and forth.) I eliminated the quotation from the Taylor letter of 1850 on the grounds that it doesn't refer to the First Vision; at best it's a conflation of the First Vision and the Moroni Vision. Again, you could always say that "apologists argue."--John Foxe 12:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Joseph Smith-History 1: 5.
  2. ^ (Smith 1832, p. 3)
  3. ^ Backman 1969, p. 309 (June 1820). These, however, followed rather than preceded the traditional date of the First Vision in the early spring of 1820.
  4. ^ (Porter 1969, p. 330)
  5. ^ Joseph Smith-History 1: 5-6
  6. ^ Palmer, 244.
  7. ^ Joseph Smith-History 1: 5.
  8. ^ (Smith 1832, p. 3)
  9. ^ Palmer, 244.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Vision/Archive_7&oldid=512692027"