Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 12

Note: archived To Do list for the article can be found here.

Translation of the Book of Abraham

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but why is the "Translation of the Book of Abraham" section still in the article? We discussed this above, but it was never resolved. All the issues brought up in this section are already discussed in the Book of Abraham article. Can't we just remove it? We shouldn't have to discuss one issue in two places. If it's decided we really need the section, one paragraph should summarize the dispute with a link to the main article for the details. I'd do it myself, but I'm afraid my edit would just be reverted, so I'd like to discuss it first. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The section is major teachings of Joseph Smith, but the translation subsection is completely out of balance in the section. Someone went a little overboard. I will delete it entirely unless someone can demonstrate why this single issue is so significant that it should be the total focus of Joseph Smith's teachings. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Storm Rider, I also feel this is appropriate. A fairer treatment on Jospeh Smith's translative work would of necessity require a more thorough discussion on how the Book of Mormon came to be. For starters, it is a far more noteworthy topic - a 532 page book that skips forward and back in time, include chiasmus, includes multigenerational references to characters and their interactions across multiple tenses, includes names noone had ever heard of, and then those names were discovered on clay tablets in the 20th century, I could go on... but you get the picture, all of this was written from scratch in 60 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremydmarshall (talk • contribs) 06:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Do you have a source that talks about these clay tablets that are considered to validate the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I always hesitate to suggest a new article -- but Translations of Joseph Smith, Jr. is always a possibility. Jeremydmarshall might be interested in contributing a translation methodology subsection to Origin of the Book of Mormon. WBardwin (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am glad to get such a quick response! Thanks guys. I am more than happy to gather my sources and contribute in a meaningful way if the opportunity exists for such. I was compelled to comment when I read the Book of Abraham article section specifically, especially when all the quotes that declare Smith an "impudent fraud" are taken from a raging anti-mormon source. This is hardly neutral.

In regards to the names on clay tablets: http://farms.byu.edu/jbms/pdf/9_1_2000_05.pdf.

Daniel C Peterson, a BYU professor lectures on specific Book of Mormon evidences and has produced volumes on the subject. I will do some more reading before I begin to produce content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.98.188 (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"... are taken from a raging anti-mormon source." A point to ponder: Are articles from 'raging PRO-mormon sources' (F.A.R.M.S. [1]) supposedly more credible than those from anti-mormon sources ? F.A.R.M.S. also can hardly be considered neutral. Duke53 | ^Talk 12:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Duke53, FARMS is pro-mormon, CARM is specifically anti-mormon. The Book of Abraham references are anti-mormon. If you hold neutrality up as a guiding virtue why do the anti-mormons get to dictate the dialogue of almost the entire article? So much is that the case that the contents of this article are largely unrecognisable to those who are devout in the Latter-Day Saint faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.98.188 (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 60.242.98.188 (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this section is still in the article. Can we remove it (since it is redundant) or do we need to leave it in (for what reason, I can't imagine)? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the section this morning; how it became the majority of the major teachings section is surprising. We should be more diligent about how things are written in the article.

I did not reread the entire article, but the Pearl of Great price does need to be mentioned and the information in this deleted material should be stated concisely with a link to the subarticle. I did not summarize this section but thought we should do it here. I will add the material in a new section below with the objective that a collaborative effort takes place and the resulting information is added to the article.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy Section

I have added a line noting Smith's February 1844 denunciation of polygamy in the Times & Seasons - it was immediately reverted. The user stated that my edit was 'controversial' and possibly 'misinformation'. After placing it back in, instead of merely listing the T&S reference, I provided a link to the reliable T&S online transcript. Hopefully this will suffice. Best, A Sniper (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Article tag

Does this article need a tag over the entire thing? The article incorporates tons of citations; if citations are needed, this should be indicated in the appropriate spots within the body of the article. --Eustress (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Eustress that the tag is unnecessary. There has been a lot of work that has gone into adding citations and keeping the NPOV. Of course, if specific citations are lacking, that should be flagged at the place of concern...but that is what is being done presently anyway. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been no objections, so I'm removing the tag. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job, Eustress - it was about time. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

AofF / Wentworth Letter

An anonymous user is re-inserting the LDS version of the AofF. I don't want to end up violating WP:3RR and would appreciate if regular contributors can again discuss why it has not been included in the JSJr article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted the anon's latest edit, good job watching yourself to avoid 3RR! The one thing is I couldn't find the original discussion on the subject, if you could link it for me and the anon's sake that would be helpful. Boccobrock•T 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which archive the discussion is in, but I know the last time it occurred was in the last half year. By the way: it appears from what has been written to me that the anon is editing as Pangeanet as well as the IP address. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy and Christianity

I removed a parenthetical statement under the 1842 to 1844 section which stated:

(although Christians, as a whole, believe in the Bible and most all the ancient prophets of the Old Testament had multiple wives and or concubines, see Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc.)

This statement gives the impression that Christians are somewhat hypocritical in denouncing "plural marriage" when they believe in the Bible and "ancient prophets of the Old Testament had multiple wives". Yes, Christians believe in the Bible and understand that God allowed multiple wives in the Old Testament, however there is no hypocrisy concerning the denunciation of polygamy, the New Testament prohibits it clearly... 1 Corinthians 7:2 "each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband" and 1 Timothy 3:2 "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..."

There are many practices in the Old Testament that are no longer relevant (sacrifices) or allowed for Christians. For example, divorce, in the Old Testament a man was allowed to give his wife a certificate of divorce (for whatever reason), but Christ changed that saying that a man may not divorce his wife for any reason except adultery. There are many other such examples (oaths, sacrifices, and so on). Most Christians believe that polygamy was *tolerated* by God, much as divorce was: Matt 19:8 "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning". The reason why many believe that polygamy was like divorce —in the sense that it was tolerated and not the way it should be— is because "in the beginning" the way was one man, one woman (Adam and Eve), and Jesus clearly changed the rules of polygamy in the same way He did divorce.

If someone wants to include such a statement, then a proviso should be included. However, I think this would be inadvisable on the page, because an explanation would have to be given, such as I have provided above, and the article is no place for such machinations. That type of distinction belongs on a page contrasting the difference between Christianity and Mormonism, or the page on plural marriage. The statement as it is was, however, is misleading and offensive. Supertheman ^(talk) 15:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Pearl of Great Price rewrite

This is the subsection that was deleted:

Translation of the Book of Abraham

Main article: Book of Abraham

Smith stated that he translated the Book of Abraham from papyrus rolls. Although it is accepted that Smith bought the papyri from an Irishman named Michael Chandler in 1835, these hieroglyphics were not able to be translated at the time until the discovery of the Rosetta stone . The originals were thought by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to have been destroyed in a Chicago fire. Fragments of the papyri turned up in one of the vault rooms of the New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art. In November of 1967 the Deseret News of Salt Lake City reported the rediscovery of the papyri. Egyptologists have pointed out that Smith's purported translation is not, in fact, a translation. Dr. Archibald Sayce noted, "It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith's impudent fraud....Smith has turned the Goddess [Isis] into a king and Osiris into Abraham." (For a counter to this assertion, see Abraham in Egypt, Hugh Nibley, Deseret Book Company, 1981, pp. 133-141). James H. Breasted wrote, "To sum up, then, these three fac-similies of Egyptian documents in the 'Pearl of Great Price' depict the most common objects in the mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith's interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian Writing and civilization." Arthur C. Mace, assistant curator of the Department of Egyptian Art of the Metropolitan Museum of Art wrote, "The 'Book of Abraham,' it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication....Joseph Smith's interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end." Samuel Alfred Brown Mercer, of the Western Theological Seminary, and author of an Egyptian grammar, stated, "[Smith] knew neither the Egyptian language nor the meaning of the most commonplace Egyptian figures....the explanatory notes to his fac-similes cannot be taken seriously by any scholar, as they seem to be undoubtedly the work of pure imagination".

In the Ensign, an official publication of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Michael D. Rhodes, a researcher in ancient scriptures from Brigham Young University counters the assertions made by various experts regarding the translation of the Book of Abraham. He asserts that Egyptians "often placed vignettes next to texts that bore no relationship to them" and that it was not uncommon for all of the illustrations on a scroll to appear at the beginning, with the text following in a distant portion of the document. "Thus, the text that gave rise to the book of Abraham could have been located elsewhere on the same papyrus" and has yet to be found. However, this hypothesis ignores the fact that the papyrus from facsimile 1 has been conclusively shown to have originally adjoined several other fragments in the collection and bear no resemblance to the writings of Abraham (they are portions of the Book of the Dead).

Lastly, Rhodes states that several accounts of Abraham's life have been recovered since Smith's time and that The Book of Abraham compares favorably with them. According to LDS scholar Hugh Nibley, one non-Mormon scholar, E.A.W. Budge, stated that Smith's Book of Abraham was "clearly based on...some Old Testament apocryphal histories." As Nibley points out, the Old Testament apocryphal histories to which the document so closely corresponds were not available in Joseph Smith's time, and were available in the British Museum only to Budge himself nearly eighty years later. Critical scholars have noted that LDS researchers have succumbed to "parallelomania" in finding parallels to prove their points, and largely dismiss the explanations given by Rhodes and Nibley.

What needs to take place now is that this information needs to be restated in a concise manner and linked to the article that treats the information more fully. Additional information should also be written that encompasses the Pearl of Great Price, which is actually the major topic to this section and not the Book of Abraham. Further, the major teachings derived from the Pearl of Great Price is the focus of the total section.

We should also look that the entire section entitled major teachings. This may currently be adequate, but we should determine if all major teachings are covered here. Someone want to take thte first stab? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Article edits

I made two major changes. Both were for form; I personally have no particular opinion on the subject, and believe I did not change any of the substance. I cut most of the section on polygamy, because there is a separate article. The section before I cut it was totally unclear, with contradictions, duplications, and poorly selected miscellaneous references. It was so hard to read and understand I decided to edit this article. I discovered the separate article discussed the subject in a similar way, but was organized in a far better fashion.

I also cut the section of eulogies. I respect the desire of some to praise Smith, but I believe this section added little to the substance to the article. It's clear from the article that many held Smith in great respect, making the praise in this section redundant. Many, many of the profiles in Wikipedia could be extended with respectful praise like this, but I believe that would lengthen many articles while adding few facts. I make no judgment on the accuracy of what was said, but do not think such comments improve Wikipedia articles. The merits of the person discussed are better established by the substance of the article. DaveBurstein (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As I was writing the note above, someone reverted my changes as "unexplained." I think if he or others look at my suggestions you'll find them appropriate. A long, confused section had conflicting claims about Smith's views on polygamy. I replaced it with a much shorter section with the most persuasive item on each side and referred to the (far better) separate article on the subject. I removed the "eulogy" section because I believe it an unnecessary addition to the article. You cannot read the article without relaizing many held Smith in great respect, so I think the eulogy adds length but little substance. DaveBurstein (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Returned here because reading the article suggested a better way to express my thoughts. Someone knowledgeable who expanded on Smith's teachings, as suggested, would be adding to and improving the article. I think that a far better use of space then heartfelt praise that adds few facts. DaveBurstein (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

DaveBurstein, FWIW, your signature belongs at the end of your post, not the beginning. Also, use the "Show preview" button before you hit the "Save page" button so you can see what your post looks like first. Two line breaks are required for new paragraphs. I reformatted your posts above to what I think you intended. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Marriage to Emma Smith

Some edits have been going back and forth regarding the mention of other wives in the marriage and family section. If the intent is to focus on the marriage with Emma, may I suggest that the section heading be changed to Marriage to Emma Smith (or something similar)? The intent of the section can be worked out here on the talk page. Just a thought. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Awesome idea Alanray! Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an "awesome idea" if your purpose is to minimize mention of Smith's polygamy. Not so awesome if you're trying to organize the article logically, by keeping wives and children in one place. - Juden (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Except if your POV purpose is to use speculation to suppose Smith had more children than has been proven historically. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not "speculation". At present, the article suffers from your attentions, as you seek to give a minority POV undue emphasis. What the article needs is a clear statement such as, "Historians, on the basis of contemporaneous documentation and testimony, agree that Smith married about two dozen women in his lifetime. Some Mormon denominations (<insert names here>), on the basis of the Smith family's denials, believe Emma Hale was Smith's only wife." It's clearly POV pushing to talk about only one wife and ignore the others and the possibility of other children. - Juden (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What is POV speculation is to insert something alluding to Smith fathering more children than is verifiable with his legal (i.e. supported by the laws of the church at the time, and the monogamy law of the state) spouse. As someone interested in the historical record, you are certainly aware that titillating gossip about Smith bastard children has graced tell-alls since the 1850s, and even eager apologists have been unable to prove it using modern science - in fact, it has been disproved, one alleged kid at a time. Fawn Brodie herself illustrated the uncertainty of historical research as she was certain that Oliver Buell was the 'smoking gun' proof of extramarital Smith progeny. Oops. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Again: it's not speculation to say that the possibility of other children was suggested during Smith's lifetime and examined by historians since - indeed, you yourself have just said it. What's POV is trying to keep that fact out of the article, or seeking continually to minimize it. The article still suffers from undue emphasis on the minority POV of Smith's polygamy.- Juden (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sniper is correct; significant effort, money, and research has gone in to prove that Joseph Smith fathered other children than with Emma; every one of them have been disproved. It is a shame we can't make this the typical anti-Mormon screed, full of titillating lies, innuendo, and half-truths while ignoring facts and the conflicting problems with reality. But unfortunately, it is Wikipedia and we have to stick to facts as discussed by experts. Old junk that has been disproved is not acceptable, even that it does meet the desires of POV editors. It is just tough luck I guess. Juden, you might want to consider a blog; I am sure tons of people would be drawn to your enlightening editorials. Cheers! --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please consult WP:Civility. - Juden (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I know - I had to check it to see if it applied to the quip about my misspelling of 'Smith'. ;) A Sniper (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Quip? I simply included what I changed in my edit summary - which is what they are for, rather than your use of them to insult me. By the way, your recent edit also contains a significant misspelling. - Juden (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That ends this discussion, I wager. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that last comment was from Storm Rider. I am very sorry that I failed to read the signature. It's Storm Rider who has inserted the most recent misspelling in the article, and he who has been uncivil and used edit summaries for invective, not you. - Juden (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) Civility is an odd beast that is harped upon by the self righteousness. Oh, how they squeal when their way is not obtained. Fingers sharp against the sky proclaim how they have been slighted by every passer-by. Wronged they proclaim as they continuously demand recompense for treatment undeserved they feign. All that is needed is to stare once more into the glass and see the timber sticking from their eye. Twas not the other where offense most lay, but in their own unbearable, constant, disruptive behavior so common to the barbarian. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess you think alluding to me rather than specifically using my name exempts you from the need to be civil. It doesn't. - Juden (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would advise everyone here to tone down the rhetoric a notch. It doesn't help to build a better article. As I look at the history, I also see a lot of edit-warring, and possible 3RR violations. Myself, I have no opinion on this question, other than that it is an interesting one. But in any case, I think it'd be best for all involved to treat each other with respect; there seem to be legtitimate points of disagreement here, but they are all in good faith, as far as I can see. IronDuke 00:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Iron, you might want to review Juden's history before you start claiming good faith. A long history of interaction leads only to one conclusion: he is unequivically committed to his POV. When you are going to ride to the rescue at his petty request, always, ALWAYS, look at contribution history. You can see the quality of his edits. Then enter the fray. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Section on Smith's Polygamy

The current section on Smith's Polygamy is filled with weasel words, and the title itself "Other Marriages" is itself a weasel word because it really refers to Smith's polygamous marriages. Also, it seriously misrepresents or suppresses the history of Smith's polygamy, and generally presents a POV denial of Smith's polygamy. This section must represent Smith's polygamy with concise, direct, and NPOV language that presents this subject honestly. There is a much fuller article on the Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy, but at the very least the most relevant facts from that article and the sources supporting them must be represented in this article. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the whole idea of having the other pages was to present the details, not to have it duplicated on the JSJr. page. If you want to re-write the current paragraph, go ahead, but adding all of that defeats the purpose of the other pages. And what weasel words are you referring to? Why not fix them? Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We are not discussing duplicating details, but representing the most relevant facts about Smith's polygamy and the sources supporting these facts with honest, concise, direct, and NPOV language. My attempt at this takes about 4K characters, versus about 50 KB at Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy, so in no way can this section be represented as "duplication." Weasel words: "Other Marriages" (as explained above), 2/3 sentences in original devoted to denying Smith's polygamy, relying entirely on Smith's and Emma's testimony. These are details that belong in the other article not here. Weasel problems to be specifically avoided are "implicit endorsement of faulty logic," "repetition," and "partisan opinions," which all can to said to be present in the brief POV section "Other Marriages." This original section is frankly laughable when weighed against the facts stated in the reliable sources provided. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Écrasez please feel free to rewrite the paragraph, and we can work to get it more concise, but keep it one paragraph. It certainly should be a summary of the key ideas of the the main article at Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy. The sources can simply be made as references, I don't think direct quoting is necessary. cheers! Boccobrock•T 19:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll work to get the 4K doen to half that in a single paragraph, though I would not characterize a 4K section of a 65 KB article as undue weight. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not referring to JSJr. and Emma's own words as 'weasel'. Regardless of how much data is included in the paragraph, it must be relevant to an article on Smith that he denied the polygamy in church publications, as did his wife. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like weasel words are in the eye of the behold at this juncture. You will not find any argument from LDS that Joseph Smith had plural wives or participated in polygyny. However, you will find a significant majority of CofC and others who completely reject that position. In their opinion it was all Brigham. What we can not do is present it as fact; Wikipedia does not make deductions we simply quote the statements of experts. Do you understand this distinction? Some would say polygamy is a weasel word; the accurate term is plural wives or polygyny. "Other marriages" does not deny Joseph's participation in polygyny or any thing else. Are you saying that it does deny that Smith had other marriages? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that's why Wiki must rely upon reliable sources to decide what to include in an article. "Other Marriages" is clearly weasel when it is, in fact, Smith's polygamous marriages that are being discussed. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to completely miss the point. Who gets to decide what section titles to use when reputable references conflict? Are you that fellow or is anyone else allowed to particiapte? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The only conflict here is that a very small sectarian POV believes that Smith did not have Polygamous Marriages. Calling this section anything other than "Polygamous Marriages," when Polygamous Marriage is itself the very nature of the conflict, is especially weasel, whether or not one agrees with the sect's POV. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to Emma Smith and her family as a sect? It appears from your writing that you yourself are pushing a POV based on your own 'sect'. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am referring to Emma Smith and her family as a sect. Even today, the CoC has 250K members, while the LDS has 13 million. The CoC is a sect. My own POV and 'sect' is to use words like sect and polygamy simply as they are defined and commonly used. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to one of the main issues here, the section here presents a considerable amount of new information and new sources that are not discussed at Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy. Écrasez, are you (or anyone else) still trying to rewrite this section to summarize what's at "Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy"? Is anyone actively trying to move pertinent info in this section to the "Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy"? I don't mind doing it, but didn't want to parallel anyone else's efforts.--Ace2012 (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be annoying...

A Sniper has deleted the following text, based upon the reviewed work of authoritative historians, comparing it to a "National Enquirer article." A Sniper's emotional response to these facts notwithstanding, these are verifiable facts from reliable sources, and a brief representation of these facts should appear in this article:

The question of Smith's progeny from his polygamous marriages has been raised since his death. Y-DNA genetic testing for non-male is not possible, complicating the search for Smith's descendants from polygamous marriages. Also, Smith purportedly had Dr. John C. Bennett perform abortions for his polygamous wives to conceal the relationship.

(refs here, with links to the original sources). I will listen to what others have to say before editing again. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I just reviewed the references you gave to support the abortion, etc. claims and ended up deleting three references. One did not even apply; if Joseph Smith has accused Bennett of aborting pregnancies resulting from Bennett's extra-marital affairs, that does not mean Smith used his services. It is not even close; it is a total misuse of the reference. The first one I deleted had nothing to do with the topic. The last one was the same reference as the last remaining one. We do not repeat references in an attempt to make the case that there is any case. This is another example of gross abuse of referencing, which seems to be a common problem when you use references. Please make a more concerted effort to use references properly.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Read them again, this time more carefully:

• Newell 1994 cites Bennett's abortion of Smith's children on page 111, link. Newell even goes on to say that when the women refused the abortion, "Bennett stated that he came with Joseph's approval."
• Smith 1971 cites Bennett's abortion of Smith's children on page 113, link.
• Sarah Pratt, supported by the recollection of others in the cited references, says that Smith had John C. Bennett perform abortions to conceal Smith's relationship with his (single) polygamous wives, as recounted in a discussion with Smith's son Joseph Smith III (by Emma),

  "I saw that he was not inclined to believe the truth about his father, so I said to him: 'You pretend to have revelations from the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord to tell you what kind of a man your father really was?' He answered: 'If my father had so many connections with women, where is the progeny?' I said to him: 'Your father had mostly intercourse with married women, and as to single ones, Dr. Bennett was always on hand, when anything happened. (Wyl 1886, pp. 60–61)

These references are reliable and support the text; I'm restoring them, as I see that you've deleted them for spurious reasons. If you have reliable sources that rebut the ones provided here, please include them. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with this particular accusation, but if we mention this in the article, we need to be careful about how it is framed. At least one of these sources (Sarah Pratt) appears to just be a recounting of a rumor. There is no reason to believe that Sarah Pratt had first hand or specific hearsay knowledge of this. We should check the other sources as well. If none of them were in a position to have first-hand or at least specific hearsay knowledge, and it seems they are just recounting a rumor, then we should say something like "Several witnesses recount rumors that John C. Bennett performed abortions for some of Joseph Smith's plural wives." Does somebody have access to the actual passages cited? The links above do not include these cited pages. COGDEN 22:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Écrasez l'infâme - Have you stopped beating your wife? Bennett is talking about Joseph's implicit approval of Bennett's polygamy (or attempted liaisons) in the first two references you cite; there is no implication of Joseph Smith and abortion; I don't understand the context of your third reference, but given the mushy conclusion from the first two, I assume it too can be dismissed. I'm sorry, but I have to call you out on this. If this is an example of the logical basis with which you have been editing articles in this polygamy series, I am seriously questioning the integrity of those edits. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to the first two, but I think the third one is, clearly, a reference to Bennett performing abortions for Smith's plural wives. However, it appears to be a recounting of a rumor, and if so, we should at least frame it as such. COGDEN 22:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There are links above to the Google Books versions. I'm gone for the weekend, but check them yourself. They belong in the John C. Bennett article, if anything. As far as JS abortions, see WP:SOURCES -- this is clearly based in rumor. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Google excerpts do not include the cited pages, at least when I accessed them. Looking a bit into this, I'm not totally sure about Sarah Pratt's allegation being a rumor. It may be, or may not, I can't tell. Pratt and Bennett were accused by upstanding Mormons who say they saw them at least reach "second base", who say they had an affair over several months in Nauvoo while Orson was away on a mission, and it might be that Pratt could have been in a position to observe Bennett's clandestine medical procedures, but I don't know. I think what we need here is some guidance from recent scholars. Does Bushman mention this in Rough Rolling Stone, or is this in any of the other prominent Mormon or non-Mormon biographies? COGDEN 23:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I found an online source for the third citation. Apparently, the author says he interviewed Sarah Pratt, who recounted a story where Bennett told her he was on his way to do "a little job for Joseph" because "one of his women was in trouble.".[2] So that answers the question of whether or not this was a rumor. Aparently it was not. Wymetal appears to be a reliable source for Pratt's allegations. So we can probably say something like: "Smith has been accused of allowing his then-closest associate John C. Bennett, a medical doctor, to perform abortions for Smith's Nauvoo wives who were officially single." COGDEN 00:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay folks, for those of you who cannot access these links (Google books lets you skip to the specified page, you know), or claim that they do not say as represented above, here are fair-use screen shots of the most relevant portions (below). Newell 1994 cites Bennett's abortion of Smith's polygamous children on page 111, link. Newell even goes on to say that when the women refused the abortion, "Bennett stated that he came with Joseph's approval." Smith 1971 cites Bennett's abortion of Smith's children on page 113, link. As discussed in Smith 1971, the Saints worked hard to counter these charges and discredit Bennett, but to little effect. The fact remains that there are credible (to historians writing in reliable sources) charges that Smith used Dr. John C. Bennett for abortions, at least to conceal his relationships with single women. A biographical article requires a section on offspring, and Smith's requires one on polygamous offspring, for which this charge is highly relevant. It would be POV and biased to omit it, for then Joseph Smith III's question "where are the progeny?" carries greater weight. I am comfortable with the language suggested by COGDEN above. This charge requires only a single sentence in the article, and perhaps a single sentence rebuttal if someone wishes to compose one. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

These fair-use screen shots were auto rm'd because they don't appear in an article. To see the text, just click the links Newell 1994 and Smith 1971, then either go to pages 111 and 113, or simply search the text for "abortion." Also, there is Wymetal 1886, as COGDEN points out. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Brief lo-res excerpt from Newell, Linda King (1994). Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith (2d ed.). University of Illinois Press. p. 111. ISBN 0252062914.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Brief lo-res excerpt from Smith, Andrew F. (1971). The Saintly Scoundrel: The Life and Times of Dr. John Cook Bennett. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. p. 113.

_{Subscript text}== Please stop attempted POV suppression of facts==

please stop with the POV crusade - what's next: using 1860s pulp fiction as sources? A Sniper (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As much as you may fervently wish that this were rumor or "pulp fiction" or POV, these are eyewitness accusations appearing in reliable source histories. This is obvious to another editor above, who writes "Apparently it was not [rumor]. Wymetal appears to be a reliable source for Pratt's allegations." Here are the links once again again (expressed as trivial Google searches anyone may perform), that point you directly to the pages cited:

• Newell 1994, p. 111
• Smith 1971, p. 113
• Wymetal 1886, p. 61

Newell 1994 and Smith 1971 have been used as a reliable source on several Smith and Saints-related history pages. It is revealing that you characterize this scholarship as "pulp fiction" and "National Enquirer" on this single point. Please stop your POV campaign of deleting and attempting to suppress these highly relevant facts reported in numerous reliable sources. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. A Sniper, I just see on another page where you say that you're a Smith descendant. On a personal level, I'm sorry if this subject is a painful or difficult one. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not the only user who believes you're using 'facts' based on rumor and titillating nineteenth century gossip. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A Sniper, it looks like you are questioning the validity of the cited sources that are being used here and are accepted elsewhere; unless you are able to prove that they are not valid sources, then you must accept them. 'Believing' that these facts are not valid is simply not enough reason to ignore or debunk them. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As other users have pointed out, this user is using supposition, POV and information based on rumor to create facts where none actually exist. It has nothing to do with belief. I am only interested in what is documented as fact, not interesting tales based on nineteenth century gossip. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) Though I would prefer to see these sources studied more, I have not yet finished reviewing the line of research that Wyl seems to be the source. It does not matter that the same things are cited by different individuals when they all come from the same source. Andrew J. Smith just repeats what others have said, but I do not find any reputable historians, pro or con, that even begin to discuss this issue. I have read accusations of hearsay particularly regarding Pratt's accusations, and thus one cannot say fact. We can say that so and so said this, but...and then qualify the statement as not being reliable for whatever reason as stated by historians. I remain surprised that more significant historians have not made these accusations of abortions, etc. the centerpiece of their critique of Smith and the church. They go against everything that is believed about the purpose of polygyny. There is nothing that would support the position in LDS theology. The only purpose for polygyny is to raise up righteous children. Something does not seem right about any of this, but I have not been able to find anything in reputable sources to shed light on this. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"The only purpose for polygyny is to raise up righteous children." Huh? I can't find that qualifier in any of the definitions [3] I have read. Most reasonable WP editors can think of a myriad of reasons for polygyny other than 'raising up' righteous children. Sheesh ! Duke53 | ^Talk 21:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What reasons have your heard about the polygyny? The only reason is to have more children; there is no other. Have you even read Joseph Smith's writings? How about Brigham Young? Sheesh indeed --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Gee, one that pops to mind immediately would be the pleasure of having sex with several women. Unlike you, most people do NOT take either Smith's or Young's writings as gospel; just because they gave a 'reason' for doing it does NOT mean that is why they WERE doing it. Blind Faith in their 'declarations' simply doesn't work for the majority of people on this planet. Indeed: SHEESH ! Duke53 | ^Talk 02:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Gee, it looks like you have yet to get the point I was making! BIG SURPRISE. The point of the teaching on polygyny was to raise up righteous children. There was never a teaching as you outline above, just for sex. Of course, many of the prophets of the OT I guess were just doing the same thing; don't you love it that Christians and Jews all revere a bunch of perverted old men? Oh, that's right...that type of criticism is not acceptable because it hits too close to home. Well, it is not surprising when only those who are not interested in anything but their own POV play games. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. So, the stated purpose of polygamy was to beget children, yet Smith wasn't having sex with his polygamous wives? Is that the official point of view then? - Juden (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Good to have the trio all together! It is such a pleasure to work with such enlightened, open minds such as you three display; and all in one place nonetheless!

You might recall that not all things with the restoration started all at once. The church, just like the church founded by Jesus Christ in his day, did not come out of the womb fully formed. Though we are certainly talking about a topic of faith, it is evident that the restoration of the church moved step by step.

So then, at the beginning, polygamy wasn't, despite your previous assertions, for procreation? - Juden (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You will also recall that Smith was commanded to not defer the practice of polygyny any longer at his peril. Of all the accusations of having children, not one case has ever been proven though many have tried to prove their relationship. That is not to say that Smith did not have sexual relations with any of the women; nor do I think that all of the relationships were platonic. It simply means he did not have progeny from them. It may also indicate tthat he did not have many sexual relationships with his plural wives. Given Smith's love of his own children and his overwhelming sense of family, which all reputable historians acknowledge, it is preposterous to think that he was causing the alledged abortions of his progeny willy-nilly as proposed by Wyl. Nothing in Smith's history or character has lead any reputable historian to make such an allegation. In summary, he is thought that Smith had sexual relations with some of his plural wives, but it is supposition to point one which one(s). There is not factual, supportable evidence. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And there is no factual supportable evidence for the assertion that he didn't have sex with all his wives. Your point? - Juden (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Before this escalates further, in my opinion the problem is with sources. Three recent works that point to one rather flimsy original source does not history make. If there is proof, bring it on - but if it is the same tired (as in 150 years +) innuendo, Wikipedia has to steer clear unless it is qualified with information as to the sketchy nature of the original source. However, the user is presenting things wholesale as if it is without challenge - this becomes POV if there is a motive to digging the dirt and finding nothing more than an old gossip rag and proclaiming it as a fact. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources and references

Sniper, I have not made a final decision on this and I am still researching it. It does look like fringe "history" at best. I find nothing that addresses the wild claims, which would only exist if it is so preposterous no one uses it any more and his little pamphlet died with time. HOWEVER, what is surprising is that I also have not found anything that rebuts the claims made. I have found that statements that state that he was such a vitriolic anti-Mormon journalist that historians doubt what he says, but the context was only in his statements in regards to Pratt alleged statements and not the pamphlet.

I did see above where COgden thinks it is reputable, but I can't begin to go that far. It is NOT scholarly, there appears to be no peer review, and the printer is hardly reputable. What I think is needed is to find some reputable historian's review of his work before it can be deemed "reputable". It is not surprising to find others who have quoted him, but they are not what one would call reputable either, certainly not in a religious context (here I am thinking of Andrew Smith).

What is finally determinned will cover all the articles that have been edited with the same things. It is almost comical how fast this type of stuff spreads, but the kid found a new treat and he had to share, I guess. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say Wymetal was reputable, only that it is reliable as a source of Sarah Pratt's accusations. Pratt's accusation itself could be a lie, but Wymetal's reporting of that accusation appears to be reliable. And the fact that Sarah Pratt thought Joseph Smith was a letcher is well-known, so her allegation is not surprising. COGDEN 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

COgden, have you studied Wyl? I have found precious little of others reviewing his work. Thinking of him as an anti-Mormon does very little for me. At the same time just accepting him as reputable also seems an unreasonable alternative. I am curious why not more significant scholars on both sides have not quoted him or discussed his pamplet in any detail. It is as if most don't even acknowledge him. Is that strange or am I misunderstanding the impact of such accusations.

Pratt obviously had a falling out the church, but do you know more about her life? What of Joseph Smith III's conversation with her; is that bad history or simply invented history? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It was more than a pamphlet. It was a 320 page book, meant to be the first of a two-volume series. The Wyl (Wymetal) book itself has been cited occasionally, for other reasons, but I have no idea why this abortion issue has not been cited more--you'd think it would be jumped-upon. For example, Van Wagoner's 1986 article here on Sarah Pratt cites and credits Wymetal's quotation of Pratt as to Smith's "proposal", but does not mention her accusation about abortion. I just read the Van Wagoner article, which seems to be a good biography of Pratt. Wagoner (who believe is, or was at the time, a faithful Mormon) does not believe Joseph Smith III's recounting of the interview, given Smith was not a journalist, was biased against the view that his father was a polygamist, and probably didn't take any form of stenographic notes, but Wagoner credits Wymetal's journalism. COGDEN 03:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I never learn

Please do not feed the trolls.

It would seem appropriate to repost something that I, and others, may be helped if remembered. Those edits that do not address the question posed, ignore all efforts to achieve cooperation, are best ignored. Eventually trolls move on when starved of the attention they are desperate to receive. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove; this is appropriate notice which you might want to check out before you remove from talk page. ALWAYS, ALWAYS understand policy before you delete anything from a discussion page. This is a warning. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"ALWAYS, ALWAYS understand policy before you delete anything from a discussion page". Yet another rule that you seem to feel doesn't pertain to you. Ah, the irony ... :) Duke53 | ^Talk 09:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop suppression of abortion allegations of Smith's polygamous children

First, please stop the suppression (and the suppression of the suppression on this talk page) of the highly relevant verifiable facts from reliable sources that present allegations of the abortion of Smith's polygamous children. As much as some may fervently wish that this were rumor or "pulp fiction" or POV or a fringe theory, these are eyewitness accusations from several people appearing in reliable source histories. This is obvious to another editor above, who writes "Apparently it was not [rumor]. Wymetal appears to be a reliable source for Pratt's allegations." Here are the links once again again (expressed as trivial Google searches anyone may perform), that point directly to the pages cited:

• Newell 1994, p. 111
• Smith 1971, p. 113
• Wymetal 1886, p. 61

Newell 1994 and Smith 1971 have been used as a reliable source on several Smith and Saints-related history pages. It is revealing that this scholarship is characterized as "pulp fiction" and "National Enquirer" on this single point. Please stop the POV campaign of deleting and attempting to suppress these highly relevant facts reported in numerous reliable sources, as well as the discussion on this talk page. Finally, here are the relevant passages from the reliable sources cited, which clearly state eyewitness allegations from Sarah Pratt that Dr. John C. Bennett performed abortions on Smith's single wives, from Zeruiah Goddard that Bennett told Pratt he performed abortions, that Smith ordered an ineffective public relations campaign to rebut Bennett (as reported in the newspaper record and published histories), and that both Smith and brother Hyrum Smith were aware that Bennett was performing abortions [my emphasis in bold]:

"Bennett had learned of plural marriage, maybe from Joseph himself, and plunged in with alacrity. But, unhampered by any moral or theological framework, Bennett approached women with his own rationale: where there was no accuser, there was no sin; pregnancy would be taken care of with an abortion. When refused, Bennett stated that he came with Joseph's approval. He and his friends called their system of seduction “spiritual wifery,” a term that had been used in the early establishment of plural marriage. The city rocked with tales that connected Joseph with Bennett's scandals, and Emma undoubtedly heard the rumors." Newell, Linda King (1994). Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith (2d ed.). University of Illinois Press. p. 111. ISBN 0252062914.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

"Bennett was also charged [by Joseph Smith] with performing abortions, or “embryo infanticide,” a charge that was likely true. Hyrum Smith alleged Bennett seduced women with the promise “that he would give them medicine to produce abortions, providing they should become pregnant.” Zeruiah Goddard claimed Bennett told Sarah Pratt “that he could cause abortion with perfect safety to the mother at any stage of pregnancy, and that he had frequently destroyed and removed infants before their time to prevent exposure of the parties, and that he had instruments for that purpose.” Pratt amplified these comments years later in Salt Lake City. According to Dr. Wilhelm Wymetal, Pratt related that when Joseph Smith had intercourse with women, “Dr Bennet was always on hand, when anything happened.” Bennett had a long instrument that was made “of steel and was crooked at one end” that he used for inducing abortions. In late August 1842 Joseph Smith called on many elders in Nauvoo “to go on missions and rebut Bennett's lies and disabuse the public mind.” More than three hundred elders fanned out from Nauvoo, “heavily laden with such certificates to rebut the statements of Bennett.” The elders tried to encourage editors to insert these statements and affidavits into their newspapers. Few succeeded, but many newspapers mentioned that these anti-Bennett certificates had been published in the Mormon press." Smith, Andrew F. (1971). The Saintly Scoundrel: The Life and Times of Dr. John Cook Bennett. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. p. 113.

"[Sarah Pratt recounted that Bennett was en route to do] “a little job for Joseph [because] one of his women was in trouble.” Saying this, he took [out] a pretty long instrument of a kind I had never seen before. It seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one end. I heard afterwards that the operation had been performed; that the woman was very sick, and that Joseph was very much afraid that she might die, but she recovered. [Sarah Pratt recounted a conversation with Joseph Smith III], “I saw that he was not inclined to believe the truth about his father, so I said to him: 'You pretend to have revelations from the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord to tell you what kind of a man your father really was?' He answered: 'If my father had so many connections with women, where is the progeny?' I said to him: 'Your father had mostly intercourse with married women, and as to single ones, Dr. Bennett was always on hand, when anything happened.” Wymetal, Wilhelm Ritter von (1886). Joseph Smith, the Prophet, His Family, and His Friends: A Study Based on Facts and Documents. Salt Lake City, UT: Tribune Printing and Publishing Company. p. 60–61.

Finally, Wymetal's scholarship is preceded by the testimonials of several high ranking and notable persons attesting to his character and judgment, such as this one from the Governor of the Territory of Utah, Eli H. Murray,

TERRITORY OF UTAH, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, SALT LAKE CITY, May 2, 1885.

To whom this may come:
Dr. W. Wyl, a representative of the Berliner Tageblatt, and who is commended to me from a high personal and official source as a "highly cultivated and thoroughly reliable gentleman," has for four months assiduously labored in the investigation of the questions involved in Mormonism. I am satisfied that he has given the subject careful study, and is therefore qualified to write advisedly of the situation, past and present. Respectfully,

ELI H. MURRAY,
Governor. link

Certainly, Wymetal satisfies Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source. A biographical article requires a section on offspring, and Smith's requires one on polygamous offspring, for which this charge is highly relevant. It would be POV and biased to omit it, for then Joseph Smith III's question "where are the progeny?" carries greater weight. This charge requires only a single sentence in the article, and I am comfortable with the language suggested by COGDEN above:

"Smith has been accused of allowing his then-closest associate John C. Bennett, a medical doctor, to perform abortions for Smith's Nauvoo wives who were officially single."

I suggest that we use this sentence in the section on Smith's children. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Except for the fact that this flies in the face of almost every other credible Smith historian. Without even going into the history of Bennett, which is now what we're all going to have to do - to show the chronological development of Bennett's falling out with Smith, Bennett's own creation of doctrine, Smith's denunciation of Bennett, etc. - it allows an original source based on a rumor to stand as historically accurate. Smith has been accused by whom exactly? If one cannot find proof of the offspring of Smith's polygamy, and if one has a POV of wanting desperately to prove it, I would guess that relying on gossip and innuendo from the mid-nineteenth century that Smith was also having abortions performed would raise a grin. When I pointed out previously that there has never been any progeny proven, Écrasez l'infâme made a comment along the lines of 'this is why!'. This isn't history - it is POV cloaked in WP:OR based on hot air. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Bennett was Smith's then-closest associate?

Here is one example of Smith's written words on Bennett (from 1842):

It becomes my duty to lay before the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the public generally, some important facts relative to the conduct and character of DR. JOHN C. BENNETT, who has lately been expelled from the aforesaid church; that the honorable part of [the] community may be aware of his proceedings, and be ready to treat him and regard him as he ought to be regarded, viz: as an imposter and base adulterer.

It is a matter of notoriety that said Dr. J. C. Bennett, became favorable to the doctrines taught by the elders of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and located himself in the city of Nauvoo, about the month of August 1840, and soon after joined the church.... He had not been long in Nauvoo before he began to keep company with a young lady, one of our citizens; and she being ignorant of his having a wife living, gave way to his addresses, and became confident, from his behavior towards her, that he intended to marry her; and this he gave her to understand he would do. I, seeing the folly of such an acquaintance, persuaded him to desist; and, on account of his continuing his course, finally threatened to expose him if he did not desist. This, to outward appearance, had the desired effect, and the acquaintance between them was broken off.

But, like one of the most abominable and depraved beings which could possibly exist, he only broke off his publicly wicked actions, to sink deeper into iniquity and hypocrisy [by continuing to date her secretly]. When he saw that I would not submit to any such conduct, he went to some of the females in the city, who knew nothing of him but as an honorable man, & began to teach them that promiscuous intercourse between the sexes was a doctrine believed in by the Latter-Day Saints, and that there was no harm in it; but this failing, he had recourse to a more influential and desperately wicked course; and that was, to persuade them that myself and others of the authorities of the church not only sanctioned, but practiced the same wicked acts; and when asked why I publicly preached so much against it, said that it was because of the prejudice of the public, and that it would cause trouble in my own house [with Joseph's wife, Emma]. He was well aware of the consequence of such wilful and base falsehoods, if they should come to my knowledge; and consequently endeavored to persuade his dupes to keep it a matter of secrecy, persuading them there would be no harm if they should not make it known. This proceeding on his part, answered the desired end; he accomplished his wicked purposes; he seduced an innocent female by his lying, and subjected her character to public disgrace, should it ever be known.

But his depraved heart would not suffer him to stop here. Not being contented with having disgraced one female, he made an attempt upon others; and, by the same plausible tale, overcame them also; evidently not caring whose character was ruined, so that his wicked, lustful appetites might be gratified.

Sometime about the early part of July 1841, I received a letter from Elder H. [Hyrum] Smith and Wm. Law [a member of the First Presidency], who were then at Pittsburgh, Penn. This letter was dated June 15th, and contained the particulars of a conversation betwixt them and a respectable gentleman from the neighborhood where Bennett's wife and children resided. He stated to them that it was a fact that Bennett had a wife and children living, and that she had left him because of his ill-treatment towards her. This letter was read to Bennett, which he did not attempt to deny; but candidly acknowledged the fact.

Soon after this information reached our ears, Dr. Bennett made an attempt at suicide, by taking poison; but he being discovered before it had taken effect, and the proper antidotes being administered, he again recovered; but he very much resisted when an attempt was made to save him. The public impression was, that he was so much ashamed of his base and wicked conduct, that he had recourse to the above deed to escape the censures of an indignant community.

It might have been supposed that these circumstances transpiring in the manner they did, would have produced a thorough reformation in his conduct; but, alas! like a being totally destitute of common decency, and without any government over his passions, he was soon busily engaged in the same wicked career, and continued until a knowledge of the same reached my ears. I immediately charged him with it, and he admitted that it was true; but in order to put a stop to all such proceedings for the future, I publicly proclaimed against it, and had those females notified to appear before the proper [Church] officers that the whole subject might be investigated and thoroughly exposed.

During the course of investigation [by Church officials], the foregoing facts were proved by credible witnesses, and were sworn and subscribed to before an alderman of the city, on the 15th ult. The documents containing the evidence are now in my possession.

(Times and Seasons 3 [July 1, 1842]: 839–840; RLDS History of the Church 2:585–587)

Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you don't like the descriptor "then-closet." Bennett was at the time second-in command to Smith, so this is accurate. But in the spirit of compromise, I would accept a slight modification of COGDEN's suggestion:

"Smith has been accused of allowing his second-in-command John C. Bennett, a medical doctor, to perform abortions for Smith's Nauvoo wives who were officially single."

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Eli Houston Murray

Eli Houston Murray is hardly a reference for another individual, Wyl in this case, who is recognized as a rabid anti-Mormon. Murray was appointed to oversee the Utah Territory specifically because he was anti-Mormon. This is what happens when we attempt to "prove" the validity of a point without understanding the context and POV of individuals.

In a review by Richard Anderson of Compton's book on polygamy, he states "Compton then adds weak support by quoting Sarah Pratt, whose bitter quotations in late years were probably intensified by her interviewer, vitriolic anti-Mormon journalist W. Wyl. This reporter exposed what scandal he could find against Joseph Smith in Mormon Portraits or the Truth about Mormon Leaders, published in Salt Lake City in 1886 by the Tribune Press. In Wyl's version, Sarah said that Lucinda Harris admitted she had been Joseph Smith's "mistress" before the Nauvoo period (see p. 650). Compton acknowledges this statement is "antagonistic, third-hand, and late" (p. 650), but claims it carries weight if revised to fit the polygamy format. But such upgrading transforms a smear into a sanitized recollection."

I will continue to review Ecrasez's points above, but we all need to take a deep breath and review the sources and points that Ecrasez has brought up. Polemic writers may be acceptable to use, but they should be qualified so that readers understand that the other historians question the validity of statements made. I am reserving judgment regarding Wyl, but right now I don't think he meets the standards of a reputable source.

As an aside, COgden is just another editor and his opinion is just, that an opinion. It would be similar to me saying that Sniper has stated the source is not valid; it does not carry any weight with you. COgden and I have worked for several years on many articles and I admire him. He is an excellent, if not an oust anding resource for the tidbits of history, but he does not play the arbitrator role here in which you attempt to place him. Does that make sense to you?--Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your source is FARMS, which some call pro-Mormon propaganda. Come back and tell us when you have some peer-reviewed scholarship from a reliable source. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to make judgments about whether Mormon or non-Mormon sources are more credible. Credibility is not an issue here, because we can indicate that sources disagree. The fact that this is controversial is, for one, made obvious by framing it as an "accusation". But to make it absolutely clear, we could probably indicate in a footnote something like this:

"FOOTNOTE--This accusation was made by Sarah Pratt, wife of Orson Pratt, and many Mormon scholars consider it unreliable, given that it was made many years afterwards, and Sarah and Joseph had once had a falling-out in Nauvoo after Sarah accused Joseph of asking her to be one of his polygamous wives. (Cite FARMS or whoever.)"

COGDEN 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of sources for the abortion claim

Examining the sources cited by Écrasez above for the claim that Smith directed the abortion of his polygamous wives' pregnancies:

• The Newell quote establishes that Bennett was accused of performing abortions, but that he did so to cover his own dalliances; Newell does not implicate Joseph Smith in the practice.
• The Smith quote also links Bennett to the practice of abortion, but depends entirely on Wymetal for the allegations by Sarah Pratt that abortions were carried out on Joseph Smith's behest, and the Smith source does not affirm the allegations' validity.
• Wymetal depends on Sarah Pratt alone for the allegations that Joseph Smith directed Bennett to perform abortions.

Thus there is a single source, Sarah Pratt, for the notion that Smith had no polygamous offspring because of Bennett's involvement. Is Pratt an eyewitness? I do not see anything in the sources that indicates that she was present during any of the alleged abortions; rather, she repeats what Bennett and others have told her. Thus, her evidence is hearsay, not eyewitness as Écrasez suggests.
My conclusion is that since some reliable sources have mentioned the allegations, it may be appropriate to mention them on Wikipedia too—in an appropriate place. I hold that this summary article on Joseph Smith is not such a place since the allegations garner only a couple of paragraphs in each of the few reliable sources that even mention the matter, and other reliable historians apparently don't give the subject any treatment. So, a more in-depth article on LDS polygamy, John C. Bennett, or that particular period of Joseph Smith's life, might be more suitable, per WP:UNDUE.
As far as COGDEN's suggested compromise is concerned, it's pretty reasonable (with caveats about which article it is suitable for). My only suggestion would be to be clear about who made the allegations:

"Sarah Pratt, wife of Orson Pratt, said that Smith's then-closest associate John C. Bennett, a medical doctor, told her that he performed abortions at Smith's request for Smith's Nauvoo wives who were officially single."

This eliminates a passive construct and informs the reader of the sources of the claim, which will help the reader better judge its veracity. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Alanyst, isn't it correct to say that Wyl stated that Pratt said xxx? I am not sure if I would agree that quoting individual means that you condone, accept, or even have verified the validity of the comments. Thoughts?

You will notice that the respective articles have gained a proliferation of quotes from these sources, it may be time to balance them with quotes that shed more light on the topic from those of a different perspective. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wymetal adds another layer of provenance for the claim. However, for the sake of argument I am willing to assume Wymetal's perfect reliability in his quotation of Pratt, because it doesn't really change that Pratt's abortion allegations, even if accurately related, are based on hearsay and not personal knowledge. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Really the only way that this can remain accurate in the telling is to note that Wyl stated that Pratt said blah blah blah. Hearsay. Without any information on Dr. Wyl and the circumstances of his stay in SLC during 1885, any Wikipedia reader could get a skewed impression based on, uh, accurate reporting at best or nineteenth century tabloid journalism at worst. I agree with alanyst that, regardless of how the single sentence is phrased, this does not belong on the JSJr. page - amen to that. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to question Wyl (Wymetal) as a source of Pratt's accusation. That makes for horrible prose and ends up belaboring the point and drawing undue emphasis, and is totally unnecesssary. Although we can question Pratt's accusation, there is no reason to doubt Wymetal's reporting of that accusation, because Sarah Pratt's views on Joseph Smith are well-known. Her accusation is not surprising, and parts of her story (such as Bennett performed abortions) is corroborated by other sources. I don't think any scholar has directly challenged Wymetal's reporting of Pratt's allegations. Pratt may have been lying, but there is no reason to doubt that the lie is Pratt's rather than Wymetal's. COGDEN 18:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I only have time for a brief response to these comments: but I will point out immediately that the first of alanyst's comments, "The Newell quote establishes that Bennett was accused of performing abortions, but that he did so to cover his own dalliances; Newell does not implicate Joseph Smith in the practice," is plain wrong: Newell says, "pregnancy would be taken care of with an abortion. When refused, Bennett stated that he came with Joseph's approval," which links Smith directly to Bennett's abortions, at least according to Bennett. Second, we're all aware that FARMS archives would be full of opinions castigating these reliable sources, but that leaves the POV issue of FARMS opinion. Third, of course a terse representation of this issue belongs in this article because it had direct bearing on Smith's children. The article is filled with far less important details (and less established) than this. More later. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I perhaps phrased that analysis poorly; what I meant was that Newell relates no claims that have to do with Smith's polygamy, but rather Bennett's, so the first source does not support the idea of abortions being performed to hide evidence of Smith's polygamy. You are correct that Bennett accused Smith of approving the abortions that Bennett did, but Bennett is an unreliable witness given his contemporary reputation and the regard that historians give him (see the Smith source). In other words, even if we assume that Newell's research is 100% accurate, it does not say anything about Joseph Smith's progeny, which is the putative reason for citing the source. If the abortions were verified as historical fact, it might be worth a mention in this article, but since we have only allegations based on hearsay related by a single individual to a historian of debated reliability and known prejudice, it's not suitable for a summary article. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Newell doesn't come right out and say that Bennett's alleged abortions affected Smith's progeny, but obviously if Smith's wives were having abortions it would have some not small effect on his progeny, so by direct logic Newell does address this. Also, Sarah Pratt comes right out and says this to Joseph Smith III no less; this is the content and importance of the conversation she had with him, who asked her, "If my father had so many connections with women, where is the progeny?," to which Pratt replied, "Your father had mostly intercourse with married women, and as to single ones, Dr. Bennett was always on hand, when anything happened.." So there is a historic link in reliable sources with Bennett's alleged abortions and Smith's progeny. As for Pratt being hearsay, that's also incorrect. She says that she saw Bennett en route to perform an abortion on one of Smith's pregnant wives, and saw for herself "a pretty long instrument of a kind I had never seen before. It seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one end." That's an eyewitness account. The only hearsay part is " I heard afterwards that the operation had been performed; that the woman was very sick, and that Joseph was very much afraid that she might die, but she recovered," but she's not some Nauvoo Joe-on-the-street saying this, but a part of Smith's inner circle who would be in a position to know, which is why she's treated as reliable in the reliable sources I cited. You conclude, "a single individual to a historian of debated reliability and known prejudice …" Debated by whom? You? FARMS? Aunt Bessie? All the reliable sources I've cited also treat Wymetal as reliable, and say absolutely nothing negative about his reliability or prejudice. So WP:PROVEIT with your own reliable sources, if there are any. Though you have appeared to try your best, this analysis is full of logical and factual holes. I could go on, but enough. As your conclusions are based upon obviously faulty analysis, they also are faulty. Obviously allegations that Smith wives had abortions has a very direct impact on his progeny, which obviously deserves brief mention in this summary article. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bennett had no credibility, based upon every shred of historical evidence. Neither did Sarah Pratt. Bennett snared six women into his spiritual wifery teachings, and these ladies' names were printed in the Nauvoo Wasp newspaper (Wasp 1 [October 15, 1842]: 2) Five who belonged to the Church were (interestingly) Sarah Pratt, wife of Apostle Orson Pratt, who was accused of having an affair with Bennett while her husband was a missionary in England, Martha Brotherton, a teenage English immigrant, and two young sisters, Margaret and Matilda Nyman. The woman who was not a church member was Emmeline Hibbard White, ex-wife of Captain White who had sold Smith the Nauvoo Homestead. Throughout all of that period, of course, Bennett had a wife & family in Ohio. Dr. Robert D. Foster said of Bennett in the Wasp that "he tried to father all his own iniquity upon Joseph Smith" (Wasp, September 24, 1842). Bennett's very short time as a church member was followed by years of titillating rumormongering against Smith, using the Midwestern press as his vehicle. Among his juicy gossip: Smith controlled a death squad called the Danites; charged Smith with duress; claimed Smith had ordered the assassination of the former governor of Missouri; accused Smith of treason against the USA (upon the premise Smith was forming his own theocratic country); created an elaborate hoax re: Masonic shenanigans; etc. Among Bennett's small band of pals were of course his lover Sarah Pratt and Nancy Rigdon. Meanwhile, many of the leading men & women of Nauvoo were signing affidavits and publishing notices in the church and local publications denouncing Bennett. How can anyone pick and choose one nugget of truth among the dung heap of malicious gossip? Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean to tell us the Nauvoo Wasp, a pro-Mormon propaganda rag, slandered the character of (at least) two women Sarah M. Pratt and Nancy Rigdon who rebuffed Smith's sexual advances and caused him public embarrassment? Shocking! And now you come back 150 years later to mouth Smith slanders. Despicable. Come back and tell us when you have some peer-reviewed scholarship from a reliable source. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Addressing the points by Écrasez:

• "If Smith's wives were having abortions it would have some not small effect on his progeny, so by direct logic Newell does address this." But Newell is writing about Bennett's liaisons, not Joseph's, so what Newell says about Bennett's abortions pertains only to Bennett's progeny.
• "So there is a historic link in reliable sources with Bennett's alleged abortions and Smith's progeny." The sole link is alleged by the secondhand testimony of Sarah Pratt; nothing else establishes this link. It does not approach the level of historical fact.
• "She says that she saw Bennett en route to perform an abortion on one of Smith's pregnant wives." Unless she accompanied him to the scene of the abortion, she would have had to have been told where he was going and for what purpose—hearsay. Similarly, she relied on Bennett's explanation of the instrument's purpose and for whom it was intended, so that's also hearsay (if her account, four decades later, is not erroneous or embellished). Being an eyewitness to hearsay doesn't make one's testimony of it anything more than hearsay.
• I concede the point about Wymetal's reliability being "debated"; "debatable" would have been a better term as I am not acquainted with existing scholarly criticism of his work or methods. But I've already assumed for the sake of argument that his reporting of Pratt's testimony was impeccable. The assumption, even if true, does not alter the fact that the allegation depends on hearsay testimony of a single individual.

Respectfully, I think my analysis holds up pretty well under your scrutiny. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This just repeats your first faulty points. Come back and tell us when you have some peer-reviewed scholarship from a reliable source. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be dismissive; it comes across as rude. I'm arguing in good faith here and have not merely repeated myself. You challenged me on my analysis of Newell and I refuted your challenge, and I further note that your argument begs the question by assuming the conclusion you claim Newell supports ("Smith's wives were having abortions"). Unless you can demonstrate without logical fallacy how Newell supports your claim, that source is out of the discussion. That leaves Wymetal quoting Sarah Pratt's testimony as your sole source for your claim. You challenged my characterization of the testimony as hearsay, and I rebutted you. You haven't shown my rebuttal to be incorrect, so my characterization stands. Do you believe that a single person's hearsay testimony is strong enough evidence to warrant inclusion of the claim in a summary article like this one? I don't. If you insist that it merits inclusion here, we are at an impasse. (But please recall that I am open to its inclusion as a brief statement in a more in-depth article. I hope you see this as a sincere attempt at finding a reasonable middle ground supportable by WP policy, because that's what it is.) The logical next step would be to ask for outside opinions (either WP:Third opinion, WP:Mediation, or WP:RFC). Would you have a preference on which avenue to try first? alanyst ^/talk/ 17:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

alanyst, really sorry if I came off as dismissive, please do not take my necessarily quick, terse responses as such. I simply believe that the claims made call for a reliable source, which I have not yet seen. As an example of this, I offer this reliable source that thoroughly documents the love affair between Bennett and Sarah Pratt, and one for which I'll have to eat some crow for A Sniper below. Finally, I also believe that your 2d response does not address the content of the reliable sources. More later … Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Strike that, and never respond in haste; see below.

alanyst, you have made a logical, powerful argument and came out on the side of what is correct. Driven by POV (what is the POV? to use whatever means of hearsay or unproven rumor as fact to discredit the article subject), the user will not accept your sound reasoning as the conclusion justifies whatever means one uses to get there - to build a house on whatever flimsy historical material one can dig up. Thanks for your efforts. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A Sniper, respectfully I feel it would be more productive to refrain from speculating on people's motives here. Cheers, alanyst ^/talk/ 18:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting conversation going on here, sorry I was away and couldn't be a part of it. In short, I tend to agree with analyst - which I gather means about a one or two sentence mention of abortion in the article itself - something like: "One disaffected member has alleged that abortions were performed on Joseph Smith's pregnant wives by John Bennett.*ref, with quote* These allegations are disputed by several scholars.*ref, with quotes*". That is about all the treatment that this topic deserves in my opinion. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Descartes1979. I would mention that alanyst's suggestion was that this qualified one-liner (after being agreed via consensus, I would figure), doesn't belong on the JSJr. main page but on one of the others... Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it merits mention in a different article, not this one. I'm also not sure, Descartes1979, that we can say "the allegations are disputed by several scholars" at this point; I haven't seen any sources to that effect. The general lack of mention in all but a few sources bolsters my opinion that including the claim in this article would impinge on WP:UNDUE. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Pratt; a disaffected member of the church

I was trying to find out more on Sarah Pratt, given that she seems to be at the center with Bennett on these charges. Dr. Glen Cooper, a historian of science and philosophy, wrote a short article on a text that used this same source of Wyl's conversation with Sarah Pratt. I have copied a paragraph that would seem to encourage that more research needs to be done rather than taking the few sources presented above as the absolute truth, particularly when we are talking about allegations of hearsay:

"Hallwas and Launius seem oblivious to the fact that certain sources are inherently untrustworthy, something that can be ascertained from the texts themselves. For example, one woman reports that she solemnly promised not to tell what passed between her and church leaders but then proceeded to break her confidence in the letter reproduced on pages 122–25.18 How can such a source be trusted? She lied once—why not again? Furthermore, the testimony of the disaffected from any group must be taken with caution by virtue of the fact that they are disaffected. Similarly, an interview with Sarah Pratt (pp. 125–28), who became estranged eighteen years earlier, is included in all its bitter detail, describing events that supposedly took place over forty years earlier. (The amount of elapsed time since the events described ought to be sufficient to render this account suspect). The editors take particular delight in this account, which contains details of Smith's supposed adulterous encounters and John C. Bennett's ameliorating abortions that are found in no other source.19 Pratt's report contains details that surpass nearly all other sources and is replete with stylistic details of disaffection that could be demonstrated by thorough textual scrutiny. My scientific background predisposes me to prefer simpler explanations; it is simpler to suppose that Pratt and Bennett had the adulterous relationship while Orson was away on church errands than to hypothesize a broad conspiracy between the leaders of the church and their married paramours. The possibility that Pratt lied and had ample motivation for doing so, as the wife of a leading apostle, is not even considered, although the editors are quick to impute deception to other accounts that seem to favor the standard Latter-day Saint view of Nauvoo polygamy. But these editors enthusiastically and uncritically accept such unfavorable testimony as valid. In both cases, the responsible historian must assess the author's intention as manifest in her words, not from an a priori and anachronistic theory."

In brief, 40 years after the even Sarah Pratt, a disaffected member of the church has a conversation with Wyl and you know the rest of the story. Do you really think that an antagonistic person is a valid source on hearsay of 40 years ago? Was she really antagonistic or was it something else? This is the type of things that reputable historians look at and take into account when doing research. At least they raise the flag on such things.

I do not have a good understanding of Sarah Pratt, but it is obvious we need to know more about her and Wyl also. If we continue to use these references there will at least need to be some significant qualifiers put on them; sour grapes never make drinkable wine.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Your source is FARMS, which some call pro-Mormon propaganda. Come back and tell us when you have some peer-reviewed scholarship from a reliable source. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That was perhaps your weakest, lamest response yet Écrasez l'infâme. You are basing this latest silliness on hearsay, all stemming from a questionable original source, and this is somehow peer-reviewed scholarship? You appear to be the only user convinced of your own conclusions, regardless of whether disproved through rational, logical debate. Instead you should start reading the sources from the time period (1840s). A Sniper (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that any of the references/sources were peer reviewed. Do you have any evidence of any kind that Wyl's pamphlet was peer reviewed? At least what we have the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, what you call FARMS, is a group of accomplished scholars from various fields of expertise. Wyl's accomplishment was being a journalist with an objective with no one to verify his work or his writings. No scholar would begin to equate the two as equivalent. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Though I agree with you to an extent StormRider, I am rather skeptical of FARMS scholarship myself. A lot of their research regarding controversial Mormon topics is not peer reviewed in the strictest sense as is at other institutions of higher learning. All of the articles that I have read coming from FARMS tends to support that conclusion too - some of their stuff is pretty biased. Now before you all get up in arms, I am not saying they are not reliable. They are to an extent, but you just have to realize their inherent bias as an institution owned by the LDS church. OK, sorry for the tangent. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Descartes, I would never say that there is not a bias; they are scholars who are also polemic in their approach just as we see in many other churches (the Catholic Church comes quickly to mind) with similar scholars. You and I see eye to eye on that point. However, the effort to belittle a group of scholars and treat a journalist of Wyl's ilk as if it is God's word strikes me as...twisted and inappropriate. There is no comparison; Wyl was a virulent anti-Mormon who had an objective and only sought to destroy the Latter Day Saint movement. He was not some innocent scholar doing research with an open mind. Also, none of the references used are peer reviewed; is that a prerequisite for one side and not the other? I am glad to accept that as a standard for every reference, but it should be applied for all references and those that are not should all be thrown out. Is that a reasonable proposal? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

See the new section below. Andrew Smith quotes the Mormon historian Richard S. Van Wagoner who concludes that the scandalous charges made against Sarah Pratt are "highly improbable" and "slander." The couple on which these allegations are based, Stephen H. and Zeruiah Goddard, say that they did so because

"Hyrum Smith came to our house, with the affidavits all written out, and forced us to sign them. 'Joseph and the Church must be saved.'" (Smith 1971, p. 82.)

Sarah Pratt may well have been a "disaffected member of the church," but only because she refused to submit to Joseph Smith's demand that she become his plural wive and threatened to expose him, resulting in Smith's attempt to destroy her reputation, which some carry on to this day on this very talk page. The bottom line is that there is absolutely no verifiable basis for the despicable POV slander committed against Sarah Pratt here. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Here is a citation and link to Richard S. Van Wagoner's journal article on Sarah Pratt and her experiences with Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett, in which Van Wagoner dismisses charges against Pratt as "highly improbable" and "slander."

• Van Wagoner, Richard A. (1986). "Sarah Pratt: The Shaping of an Apostate". Dialogue. 19 (2): 79.

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Everybody on either side of this debate is asking the wrong question: we don't care whether or not Sarah Pratt is lying, or believable, or whether her memory might be faulty. If that were the standard, we would have this same battle whenever we cited Joseph Smith as a source for angelic visits, etc. Rather, we can cite Pratt so long as: (1) her accusation appears in a reliable source--and we generally credit journalists like Wymetal as reliable sources, even if they have an agenda, and (2) the issue is credited with significance by some modern scholars. Since Pratt's accusation has been taken seriously by some modern scholars--both those that agree and those that disagree--it probably deserves some mention and possibly quick counterdiscussion, although we shouldn't blow this out of proportion. This is a minor point that could almost be handled in a footnote. COGDEN 18:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

COgden are you equating a scholar, say Andrew Smith, who quotes Wyl quoting Pratt, is the same as one who has evaluated and found it factual? A. Smith is not that kind of historian; Pratt's comments simply fit his thesis so he included it. He does no evaluation or determining the potential of anything other than fact; he only repeats Wyl's story of what Pratt said. If we going to use it, then it should be qualified and it should be balanced by all of the other information that has been presented. You and I both know that Brodie was a historian that sought for facts; she may have had an agenda and ignored conflicting facts to her thesis at times, but she is actually a historian who was not interested in just repeating the statements of others without any thought of possible invalidity of statements made.

What I am reacting to is the willingness to just accept anything anybody supposedly said. The fact that it is repeated by another somehow makes it more valid; I am sorry but the old statement of "garbage in is garbage out" applies. How does it become "garbage in is gospel truth"? First, I think it is poor scholarship to repeat that which no reputable historian has verified (and no, a food guy is not a reputable historian), and second, if repeated it should be qualified so that readers know the context from which the statements were recorded and the conflicting history to the allegations. Does that sound fair? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I think it's more important to judge a history based on its critical reception by historians, rather than who wrote the history. Since the Andrew Smith work was praised for its contribution to Mormon history, I think it's too much to make a big deal of Smith's day job. Sometimes amateur work surpasses that of some professionals. That said, Smith doesn't present Pratt's allegations as factual or countenance them at all; he merely relies on Wymetal for his description of her testimony, leaving it only at a level of "that's what she said about the matter" (my words, not a direct quote). I align with COGDEN on this; accept Smith (and even Wymetal) as reliable sources for what Pratt said (but certainly NOT as factual verification of what she alleged), and go with a one- or two-sentence compromise. My only apparent divergence from COGDEN's view is that I think such material still doesn't belong here, but in a more in-depth article; he seems agreeable to including it in a footnote in this article. That's too small a difference for me to be greatly opposed to his idea. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with alanyst that a limited mention is warranted, but not on the JSJr. main article. As has been my objective all along, the statement needs to be qualified with mention that this is a writer taking Wyl's account of Pratt's words for what it is: an interview including someone's recollection of events four decades previous. It also seems absurd that no mention of Bennett's dubious character (by all historical sources) appears to be allowed by the user, as if we should exclude any period sources in favor of the contemporary. The user has swept away any use of items from the 1840s that either cast doubt on Bennett's credibility or assert the relationship that existed (according to these sources) between Bennett and Pratt. In any case, there is no historical or contemporary verification of Pratt's assertion (as told by Wyl and included by A. Smith). A Sniper (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Bennett's credibility is at issue any more than Pratt's. Besides, Sarah Pratt said that Joseph Smith was with him when he made the statement that he was doing "a job" for one of Smith's unmarried "wives". And I don't think there needs to be independent factual corroboration, as long as this is in a reliable source, which Wyl appears to be. COGDEN 03:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not agreeing or completely disagreeing with the proposal, but I am also not one that accepts what is said by any historian as somehow being important or valid. Attempting to qualify these few statements of A. Smith because the book received awards from two very small organizations is a stretch. If the book only consisted of these statements would it still have been acknowledge or were the awards given in spite of them? My point is that those awards from those organization does not make Smith's book the first resource I want in my library for these issues. Good history is not a collection of statements from individuals of dubious character or those motivated to have something stuck in their craw. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What we are after is whether or not Wyl is a reliable source, and since he (1) was an established journalist (editor of the Salt Lake Tribune), and (2) the Wyl book is cited by at least one mainstream modern scholar (several actually, though not on this particular point), I think Wyl passes the bar. I see the main issue as WP:UNDUE. I think it has borderline importance here (maybe a footnote, if that will make the controversy go away), but could be discussed as a minor point in the sub-article. COGDEN 03:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed abortion wording

Please take a look at the wording changes I made at Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.#Abortion allegations of Smith's polygamous children. I consolidated the content substantially based on the growing consensus of the two discussions above. I also tried to add qualifiers to give it some balance. --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Descartes1979, you have a well-deserved reputation for fairness, and I know that you do excellent work. However, I cannot in good conscience accept your wording changes at Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.#Abortion allegations of Smith's polygamous children because there is no factual bases for the account represented. Please see the detailed reasons immediately below. Specifically, there is absolutely no verifiable basis for the despicable POV slander committed against Sarah Pratt here. For this reason alone, I must revert your changes, and hope that we can continue to work toward a compromise. Anyone who wishes to challenge the allegations that Smith's polygamous children were aborted by his second-in-command John C. Bennett may do so by offering their own reliable sources, but no one has yet done so. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You can see here that instead of talking anywhere or providing reliable sources, A Sniper simply deletes these allegations without comment, and misrepresents the edit as a minor ("m") one. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am always open to discuss further if you disagree with my edits, so I welcome your objection. :) --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations against Sarah Pratt dismissed as "highly improbable" and "slander" by reliable sources

The allegations made about Sarah Pratt on this page—that she was John C. Bennett's lover, that she was unreliable, and more—are all dismissed as "highly improbable" and "slander" by reliable sources. See:

• Smith 1971, p. 82.

Andrew Smith's account of the methods in which Joseph and Hyrum Smith used threats and slander against Sarah Pratt and others is given pages 81–83 (text provided below). Andrew Smith himself quotes the Mormon historian Richard S. Van Wagoner who concludes that the scandalous charges made against Sarah Pratt were "highly improbable" and "slander." The couple on which these allegations are based, Stephen H. and Zeruiah Goddard, say that they did so because

"Hyrum Smith came to our house, with the affidavits all written out, and forced us to sign them. 'Joseph and the Church must be saved.'" (Smith 1971, p. 82.)

Sarah Pratt may well have been a "disaffected member of the church," but only because she refused to submit to Joseph Smith's demand that she become his plural wive and threatened to expose him, resulting in Smith's attempt to destroy her reputation, which some carry on to this day on this very talk page. The bottom line is that there is absolutely no verifiable basis for the despicable POV slander committed against Sarah Pratt here. She is a reputable source, and a reputable witness. If someone believes otherwise, then WP:PROVEIT with a reliable source, if there are any. And no, excerpts from Smith's propaganda mouthpiece rag the Nauvoo Wasp don't count as reliable sources. Highly plausible allegations reported in reliable sources that Smith's plural wives had abortions has a very direct impact on his progeny, which obviously deserves brief mention in this summary article. Please stop the POV campaign to delete and suppress highly relevant facts reported in reliable sources, and desist the thoroughly despicable practice of slandering people whose eyewitness accounts may challenge the integrity your faith or family background. Here is an excerpt of the account from Andrew Smith (my emphasis in bold):

“According to Smith, Bennett informed her "that promiscuous intercourse between sexes was lawful and no harm in it, and requested the privilege of gratifying his passions; but she refused in the strongest terms, saying that it was very wrong to do so." Bennett then "told her that men in higher standing in the Church than himself not only sanctioned, but practice the same deeds." Bennett claimed that Smith "both taught and acted in the same manner, but publicly proclaimed against in consequence of the people" and for fear of trouble in his own house with his wife Emma Smith. Bennett succeeded with this ploy and seduced "a respectable female by lying, and subjected her to public infamy and disgrace." Smith, "seeing the folly of such an acquaintance, persuaded Bennett to desist; and, on account of his continuing his course, finally threatened to expose him if he did not desist." This threat had the desired effect, "and the acquaintance between them was broken off." Bennett was not, according to Smith, "contented with what he had already done, he made the attempt on others, and by using the same language, seduced them also."

Bennett was also accused of having had an adulterous relationship with Sarah Pratt, the wife of Orson Pratt. At the time, Pratt was one of the Twelve Apostles engaged in missionary work in England. Sarah Pratt occasionally boarded with the Smith family while her husband was abroad. She took up sewing as a means to supplement her meager income, and Joseph Smith hired her to help with his family's sewing needs. Smith introduced her to Bennett, saying that Bennett wanted some sewing done and that she should do it for him. Bennett paid her for her services.

Stephen H. Goddard and his wife, Zeruiah, stated under oath that they had taken Sarah Pratt and her son into their house on October 6, 1840. The Goddards reported that from the first night, Bennett "was there as sure as the night came." For two or three nights he left at nine o'clock in the evening, but after that "he remained later, sometimes till after midnight." During this time Bennett and Pratt "sat close together, he leaning on her lap, whispering continually or talking very low." On one occasion Bennett came to the house at midnight "and sat on or beside the bed where Mrs. Pratt was and cursed and swore very profanely at her; she told me next day that the Dr. was quick tempered and was mad at her; but gave no other reason. I concluded from circumstances that she had promised to meet him somewhere and had disappointed him." Zeruiah Goddard reported that on another occasion she "came suddenly into the room where Mrs. Pratt and the Dr. were; she was lying on the bed and the Dr. was taking his hands out of her bosom; he was in the habit of sitting on the bed where Mrs. Pratt was lying, and lying down over her." Zeruiah Goddard asked Bennett "what Orson Pratt would think, if he should know that you were so fond of his wife." Bennett replied that "he could pull the wool over Orson's eyes."

The Goddards claimed that Dr. Robert Foster furnished Sarah Pratt a house in November, although others claimed that Bennett had the house built for her or that he owned it. The Goddards contended they visited her there several times late in the evening and found Bennett and Sarah Pratt together, "as if they were man, and wife." Two or three times they discovered the child "lying on the floor and the bed apparently reserved for them." In June 1841 Sarah Pratt was turned out of the house and returned to the Goddard's home. Purportedly, "the Dr. came also as before."

This relationship supposedly continued even after Orson Pratt returned from England in the summer of 1841. Jacob B. Backenstos, a relative of the sheriff of Hancock County, attested that during the winter of 1841–42 Bennett had "illicit intercourse with Mrs. Orson Pratt, and some others." When Backenstos reproached him, Bennett replied "that she made a first rate go."

When Stephen and Zeruiah Goddard's testimonial was published, 'Sarah Pratt purportedly went straight to their home. Stephen ran out the back door, but Sarah confronted Zeruiah. "It is not my fault," sobbed Zeruiah. "Hyrum Smith came to our house, with the affidavits all written out, and forced us to sign them. 'Joseph and the Church must be saved,' said he. We saw that resistance was useless, they would have ruined us; so we signed the papers." The Mormon historian Richard S. Van Wagoner concluded that the Goddard's statements about Bennett's nightly attentions to Sarah Pratt during the month of October 1840 were highly improbable. Van Wagoner also believed that J. B. Backenstos's affidavit stating that Bennett continued the adulterous relationship with Sarah Pratt after Orion Pratt returned from England could "be dismissed as slander."

Bennett offered a decidedly different story. He claimed that Joseph Smith was attracted to Sarah Pratt and intended to make her "one of his spiritual wives for the Lord had given her to him, and he requested me to assist him in consummating his hellish purposes." Bennett told him that he "would not do it—that she had been much neglected and abused by the church during the absence of her husband in Europe, and that if the Lord had given her to him he must attend to it himself." Smith stated there was no harm in it if her husband should never find it out. "Bennett called on Sarah Pratt and warned her "that Joseph contemplated an attack upon her virtue, in the name of the Lord and that she must prepare to repulse him in so infamous an assault." According to Bennett, she retorted, "Joseph cannot be such a man: I cannot believe it until I know it for myself or have it from his own lips: he cannot be so corrupt." Bennett replied that she would soon see, unless Smith changed his mind. A few days later Smith asked Bennett to join him on a journey to Ramus, a small Mormon community not too far from Nauvoo. They started from Smith's house about four in the afternoon, rode into the prairie a few miles, and then returned to Nauvoo. They then proceeded to Sarah Pratt's house, and Joseph Smith commenced his discourse as follows: "'Sister Pratt, the Lord has given you to me as one of my spiritual wives. I have the blessings of Jacob granted me, as he granted holy men of old, and I have long looked upon you with favor, and hope you will not deny me[.]' She replied: 'I care not for the blessings of Jacob, and I believe in NO SUCH revelations, neither will I consent under any circumstances. I have one good husband, and that is enough for me."

According to Bennett, Smith then went off to visit another woman at the home of the widow Delcena Sherman. Smith remained there an hour or two, and then they started out for Ramus again. They arrived in Carthage at early breakfast, proceeded to Ramus, and then returned to Carthage that night, where they lodged "at the house of Esq. Comer." They returned to Nauvoo the following day, and Bennett called on Sarah Pratt. He asked her what she thought of Smith, and she replied, "He is a bad man beyond a doubt." According to Bennett, Smith made three additional attempts on Sarah Pratt's virtue. Finally, she told him, "Joseph, if you ever attempt any thing of the kind with me again, I will tell Mr. Pratt on his return home. I will certainly do it." Smith replied, "Sister Pratt, I hope you will not expose me; if I am to suffer, all suffer; so do not expose me. Will you agree not to do so?" "If," said she, "you will never insult me again, I will not expose you unless strong circumstances require it." In mid-January 1842, according to Bennett, Smith approached and kissed Sarah Pratt—months after Orson Pratt had returned home. She confided in her husband, "who was much enraged and went and told Joe never to offer an insult of the like again.—Joe replied, 'I did not desire to kiss her, Bennett made me do it!'" A few months later Bennett laughingly claimed that he had set "a trap in getting Joseph to attempt to kiss Mis Pratt."

Sixteen years later Sarah Pratt's neighbor, Mary Ettie V. Smith, recalled that "Sarah ordered the Prophet out of the house, and the Prophet used obscene language to her" declaring that he had found Bennett in bed with her. After Bennett's version was published in July 1842, Joseph Smith purportedly proclaimed publicly that "Mrs. Pratt, the wife of Mr. 0. Pratt, had been a —— from her mother's breast." (The unmentionable word removed from the Sangamo Journal's account is thought to have been whore.) Forty-four years later Sarah Pratt essentially supported Bennett's version of the story. She added that Bennett told her that Joseph Smith had invented a revelation permitting plural marriages to 'shield his attentions to numerous women."” Smith, Andrew F. (1971). The Saintly Scoundrel: The Life and Times of Dr. John Cook Bennett. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. p. 81–83.

In the spirit of compromise, I would accept a slight modification of COGDEN's suggestion of the sentence addressing this subject:

"Smith has been accused of allowing his second-in-command John C. Bennett, a medical doctor, to perform abortions for Smith's Nauvoo wives who were officially single."

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to hang a lot on "reputable sources" and Andrew F. Smith plays the leading role at the moment for you. In researching this scholar I found the following:

"Andrew Smith is a writer and lecturer on food and culinary history. He serves as the general editor for the University of Illinois Press’s Food Series, and teaches Culinary History and Food Writing courses at the New School University. He is the author of 16 books and numerous articles in both scholarly and popular journals. Smith has delivered over 1500 presentations at regional, national and international conferences and has frequently been interviewed in publications, radio and television. He is a consultant on culinary history."

I don't mean to quibble, but is a scholar on culinary history really the definition of "reputable" that we are to hang our hat on this issue? It would seem like we could find actual scholars who specialize in the subject area rather than those who make it a hobby and best. This just seems strange to me. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It does seem strange - however, the book did win the John Whitmer Historical Society 1997 Award for the Best Book, and the Mormon History Association’s Ella Larsen Turner Award for Best Biography in 1997. So although he may not formally have been a Mormon historian, his biography of Bennett appears to be highly regarded. Based on this, I lean towards accepting it as a reliable source. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Here is a citation and link to Richard S. Van Wagoner's journal article on Sarah Pratt and her experiences with Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett, in which Van Wagoner dismisses charges against Pratt as "highly improbable" and "slander."

• Van Wagoner, Richard A. (1986). "Sarah Pratt: The Shaping of an Apostate". Dialogue. 19 (2): 79.

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

you're funny - one moment you're telling off (if I recall correctly) Storm Rider for using something found at a BYU site, and then you trumpet off the writing of a clinical audiologist found at an LDS historical association. As I've stated, it seems to be you who needs to set the tone as to what exactly amounts to slander (and against whom), who is an acceptable source, and just what sort of POV spin these articles should take. I'll wait for some mediation, thank you. A Sniper (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought is a respected, peer-reviewed journal of Mormon subjects that has earned its good credentials. Storm Rider was just parroting propaganda from FARMS, which is not respected at all. BTW, is this the content of your criticism? Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

However, the fact still remains that your "reputable" references don't have a professional historian among the lot (let's not count a food historian as professional historian of religious history). The case could easily be made that you have hobbists being used to parrot the screed that titillates anti-Mormons. I wonder why no truly reputable historian is amoung anything you quote? In essence, on your side you have a jounalist, a clinical audiologist, and a food historian. On the other side are respected PhD's of religion; exactly how long do we have to think about who is reputable and who is not? Can you say New York minute? My point is that you may want to consider that there could actually be another side to the issue and your references may not be accurate; it is just a thought. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider, you should check out the references by hobbyists at Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt, the new revisionism battleground. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Informal Mediation Requested: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07 Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.

I've done my best to discuss these issues here and at Talk:Children of Joseph Smith, Jr. and to prompt several editors to support their claims and allegations by citing reliable sources. After many, many (many) requests by me and others, no one has yet provided any. Perhaps they exist, but no one has shown otherwise, in spite of numerous requests to WP:PROVEIT. To avoid edit warring or conflict when the pages Children of Joseph Smith, Jr. and Joseph Smith, Jr. are unprotected, and in an attempt to prompt other editors to cite reliable sources to support their claims that this information should be deleted, I have requested informal mediation, consistent with Wikipedia policy. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Revelations and The Book of Mormon section

This section is laughable at best. The section title references The Book of Mormon and revelations. Neither of these topics is covered substantively. If Hitchens is a great resource it would be a waste of everyones time to read anything that you have authored. Hitchens is extremely biased from the dust cover to the last period. A better approach would be two brief sections: The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's Revelations. Both would reference other articles. As for all the other baggage that this section contains, if there is any relavance, it belongs in another section. Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. --WaltFrost (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to make the section sound more neutral. It still needs work. For one thing, the accusations of being a "gold-digger" and "treasure-diviner" are irrelevant to the section. I try to keep references, as they are usually constructive. But it's also hard to understand what is so detestable about wanting to "find the resting place of the lost tribe of Israel" unless one is anti-religion. --WikiWes77 (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work - this is certainly a continuing work in progress for all of us. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sniper. You don't make me feel like you are trying to shoot anyone down. Actually, maybe the "gold-digger" and "treasure-diviner" labels are relevant, if the author is referring to his view of how Joseph found the golden plates and translated them. This is okay if the Church's teachings about the event are adequately represented. --WikiWes77 (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I also think that an NPOV pro-LDS side must be included to this history (all cited of course), as it is taught. I'll also quote Jaysweet from Talk:Book of Mormon on this subject:

"This was brought to my attention due to a Wikiquette alerts. A few thoughts from an uninvolved party:

"As a whole, Ecrasez's controversial edit clearly serves to skew the article away from neutral. Even if the information is factual, there is a significant undue weight problem with the way the information is presented.

"That said, some of Ecrasez's concerns and suggestions are valid. In particular, I find it astonishing that the Lucy Harris "stolen pages" saga is neither mentioned nor linked to in either Book of Mormon or Origin of the Book of Mormon. There is a brief mention of the "loss" of the pages in Golden Plates, but it doesn't mention that Lucy Harris stole them for the purposes of exposing Smith's translation as a phony.

"This seems to me to be a rather glaring omission, as the Lucy Harris story is a critical part of the roots of the Book of Mormon from both an LDS and non-LDS perspective. From an LDS perspective, this is an important parable about unwavering faith and an admonition against trying to "test God". From a non-LDS perspective, the story gives context related to the credibility of the alleged translation. Since the story itself is not denied by the LDS church (and in fact, is even taught to members), it would seem that including the story, told from a neutral standpoint and in the appropriate location, would be uncontroversial.

"The Hitchens quote is not going to fly. I personally found Hitchens' inference to be rather fascinating, but it is nowhere close to WP:NPOV. It takes certain facts (the presence of both diviners and preachers in the Palmyra area at that time) and creates an unflattering synthesis about Joseph Smith and his intentions/insights. I'm not even convinced the inference is accurate -- it seems plausible, and is certainly a fascinating take on Smith's "recipe for success", but in the end it's just one man's opinion about events that occurred over a hundred years before he was born.

"The information about Indian burial grounds near Palmyra and the proliferation of treasure-hunters in the area in that time period is new to me. It could be relevant if properly contextualized, although I think it is far more relevant in the Origin of the Book of Mormon article (I believe it is already mentioned there). Also, we need to be very careful about the reliability of sources here, given how controversial this topic is.

"Regarding Smith's literacy, this is potential relevant (though again perhaps more so in Origin of the Book of Mormon, but it needs to be careful how this is phrase. "Smith had received no formal education and so would have been unable to transcribe the verses on his own" might make sense, but referring to Smith parenthetically as "an illiterate" is both pov in phrasing, and possible offensive to the illiterate (I don't think that "illiterate" as a noun is the preferred terminology anymore, just as it would be okay to say "a handicapped person" but not "a handicapped" or "a cripple").

"The image of Smith with face in the hat... well, I'd be lying if I said it didn't give me a bit of a chuckle. But it seems a bit pov-ish, and in any case I am pretty sure it's on its way to deletion. I just don't see it meeting WP:NFCC. If it were an article about Dialogue, then maybe -- but using it to illustrate the translation/dictation of the BoM is a copyvio, because that's the same purpose Dialogue used it for. If it passes the ongoing IfD, we can revisit whether it is pov or not.

"There is no doubt about Ecrasez's intentions, but this does not mean he doesn't have a point or two. Let's do our best to discuss this rationally, and put aside our biases if possible.

"That's my two cents!" --Jaysweet (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I really would like to see both sides produce a factual NPOV account of this important history that we can all agree upon, and it is refreshing to see an editor live up to the spirit of WP:PRESERVE in the attempt to accomplish this. Also, I do think the desire of some to locate the lost tribe of Israel is worthy of a brief mention here (as well as the treasure digging), as this is important context—I believe that if you go back and parse Hitchens's quote on this subject you'll find that is completely accurate and verifiable, but please correct me with a cited WP:RS reference if you disagree. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"The Hitchens quote is not going to fly. I personally found Hitchens' inference to be rather fascinating, but it is nowhere close to WP:NPOV".. This is confusing ... are you saying that the pro-lds and official lds sources are NPOV? If a section is properly sourced then the burden of creating NPOV should be on those who support an opposing viewpoint. An article must contain opposing viewpoints to be NPOV; the rebuttal to a viewpoint is not the responsibility of the original editor. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

•• WikiWes77, do not make changes to another editor's comments on a talk page. Research an editor's responsibilities: we must cite sources for anything we add to an article; we have no responsibility to research a rebuttal to points we make in our edits. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. --WikiWes77 (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a complete quote from Jaysweet, some of which I agree with, but not the part you highlighted. As you say, the article must represent opposing viewpoints to achieve NPOV, and Hitchens as a reliable source is representative of one important viewpoint, which is why I included him in the first place. What is missing is the POV cited LDS version of this account, whether it comes from a pro-LDS or "official" source. Let the facts speak for themselves. Hitchens's POV plus LDS POV equals NPOV. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sainthood

Is JS not considered a Saint by the LDS Church? Gavin Scott (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Within the Latter Day Saint movement, members of the various denominations interpret the word saint as meaning a follower of Christ, as in Eph. 2:19, hence the term used to describe the church members. Although the denominations may differ on their view of Smith, I think that all would agree that the word "saint" is universal, and that Smith is as much a "saint" as any other believer. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Of note members of The Church of Jesus Christ, the largest of the denominations, do not pray to Joseph Smith or burn incense to him or have any other religious act to him or for him. He is esteemed as a prophet just like Moses, Abraham, etc. I never dared to be radical when young for fear it would make me conservative when old. --WaltFrost (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Revelations and the Book of Mormon

Could someone please work on this section? It continues to stick out, as it could easily be incorporated into the chronological narrative. It is also based on critical sources - Hitchens, Brodie - which of course tends to tilt it to POV. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree this section is like a promise and a crying infant. It should be carried out immediately.

Poets are like baseball pitchers. Both have their moments. The intervals are the tough things.--WaltFrost (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I cut the whole thing. Even as a never-been-a-Mormon, I find it tendentious. And forget Hitchens, he's no expert on Mormonism. If there's anything worth saving in that paragraph, it should go in the proper chronological sequence.--John Foxe (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh! A breath of fresh air. Those "paragraphs" made my skin crawl. Thank you.

Joseph Smith had two major contributions to the American culture: a new American Christian religious movement and The Book of Mormon. Critically speaking, whether the book is fanciful or inspired it speaks as a complex volume that influenced his life and the lifes of his followers.

I have brought together a section from his OWN accounting of the books origins. Look at it play with it. If you don't like it the round file sits, waiting, as a hungry mastiff with slobber laden jowls.

The best things and best people rise out of their separateness; I'm against a homogenized society because I want the cream to rise. --WaltFrost (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly no benefit in trusting to Smith's own diverse tales. POV is POV regardless of its source.--John Foxe (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "there's no benefit in trusting to Smith's own diverse tales." Exactly what do you have reference to? I agree that POV is POV no matter where it is found. However, the only one who can be considered an official expert on Joseph Smith Jr. is Joseph Smith Jr. himself. Anyone else would be writing about what they observed about or learned from or saw happening in Joseph's life. Only Joseph fully knows all that the Lord told him to do, and only Joseph is therefore qualified to speak for himself. Any other source wouldn't do him full justice. Of course, the one exception to that is the Lord, but I very much doubt we could get His perspective for a WP article, so we'll just have to go with the sources we can find. Because only Joseph knew exactly what was going on during different stages of his life, any other source would have a different perspective and perception, which may or may not be accurate. So, what we need to do is find a source that neither overlooks his faults nor makes them the central focus of material written about him. As far as the "diverse tales" thing goes, how many of us have told the same story in a different way under different circumstances? I know I have. I'm sure it's the same for you. Joseph Smith described the coming forth of the Book of Mormon different ways at different times because of the different listeners he had each time. Just as you and I would never tell the same story the same way twice given a different group of people with different levels of understanding as pertaining to the subject, so Joseph Smith told the story of the Book of Mormon origins different ways at different times under different circumstances to different people at different levels of understanding for the telling of the origins of the Book of Mormon. I think that bears consideration before a final decision is made one way or another. However, I think I would be most in favor of using either Smith's own words or the words of someone who was close to Smith and would neither overlook his mistakes nor make them the central focus of what's written about him. Does that make sense? I hope so. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The "story" is not clean cut. What we are able to do is report what Joseph said and what others said. If opinions, or interpretations are needed we use reputable sources. Jg, when you said above that people tell different stories given the different groups we were talking to would be an example of original research or possibly synthesis, which should be avoided. Generally, we just report the facts and let readers do the interpreting.

I primarily think we start with the "official" story and then point out alternate or conflicting facts as reported by reputable sources. Does that sound workable? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope that I didn't start something negative. My original statement above only pertained to that particular section and that it appeared all the references came from a couple of sources that fell within the hyper-critical camp. A decent article on JSJr. has to present his own interpretation of what happened to him in his life, as well as reliable sources. If warts are revealed, so be it - as long as the NPOV is preserved. A Sniper (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --WikiWes77 (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Storm Rider. To present any topic it is best to present the story and then any other alternate or conflicting points.

Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence. --WaltFrost (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Poetry. Are you related to Robert Frost? --WikiWes77 (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mormon denominations in the lede

Regardless of prior consensus, there is no reason why membership numbers for Mormon denominations should be in the lede for an article about Joseph Smith, Jr.--John Foxe (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia certainly should include information about the influence of the subject. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It should, but not in the lede.--John Foxe (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Those numbers are important, but are way down on the list of important things about Joseph Smith that should appear in the intro. For example, how could it possibly right to mention the number of Community of Christ members without mentioning the golden plates, his 1844 presidential campaign, or his assassination? COGDEN 18:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I too agree with John Foxe and COGDEN. Membership numbers are too much detail for the lede. alanyst ^/talk/

I agree that numbers should be placed lower in the discussion and not the intro.--WaltFrost (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Selecting an image for the "Early Life" section

I think the "early life" section needs an image, but I'm not sure which one from Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. to include. Should it be the photo of the Smith farm, the 1819 Methodist camp meeting, or Smith receiving the plates? My first instinct is to show the Methodist camp meeting. I thought about the Smith farm, which but that doesn't really show much, and I prefer images with relevant information content. Smith receiving the plates is the most important one theologically, but does not reflect any sort of summary of his early life. Or, if anybody knows of any other images (or maps?) that could be said to summarize his early life, please make suggestions. COGDEN 18:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the Methodist camp meeting one. Another one is the event of his leg operation. It is prior to the religious experiences, but would seem to be valuable about him. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been keeping my eye out for an image of the surgery, but haven't seen one in the public domain. I think I've seen some rather romanticized paintings in the Ensign or New Era, but these of course are copyrighted. If you know of a good, straightforward depiction of this, it would be very good for the "early life" article. COGDEN 21:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer to shy away from the romantized pictures for this one. I am not aware of a public domain one that fits the bill, but will keep my eyes open. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that story was not well known until just a few decades ago, as LDS Mormons kind of rediscovered Lucy Mack Smith's biography of her son, so we probably don't have the benefit of 19th century book illustrations. I keep being surprised, however, at the great illustrations that can be found in these old books, so maybe we'll find something. COGDEN 17:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Photograph

There is at least one photograph of Joseph Smith existing (albeit touched up). He looks quite different from the official portraits. But it should be used, IMHO. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC) p.s. Is the "Jr." really necessary?

I didn't know about a photo of him, and I'd certainly be interested to see it. However, I think the photo should be used in addition to a painted portrait rather than instead of, since the portrait is the general understanding of his image (but I'm also willing to be swayed by firm logic). And I would argue that yes, the "Jr." is necessary given the fact he is a "Jr." and that "Joseph Smith, Sr." also exists on Wikipedia. Cheers, Kairaiseiken (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge no photo has been verified to be of Joseph Smith, Jr. If you have references to the contrary I would like to see it. Of course, if it is verified to be such it should be added to the article.

I saw the picture several weeks ago, but at that time it was only proposed that it might be. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of pure curiosity, do you have a link to the picture in question? Cheers, Kairaiseiken (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. The photo was donated to the RLDS church in the 60s, and then showed up decades later in the archives. There has been no official verification, though word on the streets of Independence was that officials believed (90% sure) that it is JSJr. in 1843. It should look familiar, since you can find it all over the net, and a new painting of JSJr. is based on it. It is here. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This photo is not news, and it's almost certainly not Smith. It's being promoted by a painter who is trying to hock paintings of yet another "romance novel" version of Joseph Smith, which have become popular in the last few years. The photo appeared out of nowhere, with no evidence tying it to Smith, other than a vague resemblance, though not to the death mask. Sorry to say so, but Joseph Smith did not have a cleft chin and a chiseled jawline. COGDEN 00:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Cogden is right - this is old news. Neither church has authenticated the photo, which was filed away at The Auditorium in Independence for 30 years before popping up as a curiosity. KSL in Salt Lake carried a brief statement here. The photo has always made a great story, in Missouri as well as Utah. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The fellow in the picture also looks to be about ten or more years younger than Smith would have been in 1843.--John Foxe (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Foxe's plethora of trivia

User Foxe has added a plethora of trivia, the vast majority of it focuses on what could be viewed as negative. I have reverted many of his edits, but should have gone further back in history. For now, let's work on recent edits. My issues are:

• We have worked hard to have section titles that refer to time periods that also are tie into sub articles. The titles have been changed, but should remain the same for continuity.
• If we are going to start adding a plethora of trivia, who was carrying guns, who slapped who, when, why, etc. then I assume the article would need to be balanced by a plethora of positive acts by Joseph Smith. The result would be taking an already too long article and making it much, much longer. You choose. If you want me to add all of the positive, faith promoting stories I am happy to comply, but we have long had an agreement that this article seeks to be a balanced, neutral approach to an important character in US History.
• Using Bushman for all your edits, but leaving out every piece of positive information is deceitful. Also, which Bushman book are you using? When we cherry pick edits, we skew history and only produce something closer to a religious tract similar to "Dr." Martin's product ilk.

Please stop making controversial edits until you gain consensus here for them here. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Storm Rider. I am of course assuming good faith on the part of John Foxe but it seems like a re-write from the beginning that stresses the sensational. I, primarily interested in the Nauvoo and succession crisis periods, have just been waiting to see how the user re-writes those sections. I agree that there has already been a lot of work done on this article by a host of users attempting to reach NPOV consensus - tossing bits, adding others, and stressing the trivial should be discussed on this page before further such revisions. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I also assume good faith on the part of Foxe, but I fully concur. After all, every article does not cover every aspect of every subject. There are many things in ALL WP articles that have not been discussed because WP's purpose is to give an overview of the topics, provide references for further information, and allow readers to do other research on their own. There's such a thing as drowning in too much information, and Foxe's edits see to cross that line. I agree with every one of Storm Rider's points. By unilaterally changing page content in such a manner as Foxe has, he has essentially overlooked previous consensus decisions and robbed all of us of the opportunity to have a say about the proposed content. IF the information were discussed here first and made to be more balanced, I would have no objection to its inclusion. Thank you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Going back at least a couple of weeks, there are dozens of changes that have been made by the user, basically starting at the beginning of the article and moving through Kirtland... Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If trivial information has been included, especially information that is tangential to Smith, then it should be cut. Check out the latter parts of the article that I haven't touched yet and you'll see plenty of that sort of material. My goal is eventually to have a shorter article.

As for content, I've been citing Bushman almost entirely. He is not only the most respected biographer of Smith and the least biased, he is also a Mormon patriarch. If his formidable biography is to be challenged here as too POV, then we are unlikely to have a meeting of the minds. If you're not satisfied with my choices from Bushman then choose your own. Get down in the trenches with me. Wholesale revisions are cowardly, not to mention lazy.--John Foxe (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bit unfair to ask John Foxe, or any other editor, to get approval on all changes to the article before making them. But if John Foxe is following the WP:BRD model, then when his edits are reverted he should not call such actions "cowardly" or restore his edits immediately. Rather, he should discuss them with the editor(s) who reverted. John, perhaps you can explain the basis for choosing which of Bushman's details to include, since Storm Rider and others are concerned that you are cherry-picking the negative ones. Is it unfair to characterize your selections as such? alanyst ^/talk/ 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I will not enter an edit war with Foxe, but much of his added information is trivia and POV. To balance it we can add a plethora of positive pieces of trivia, but then an already overly long article will become bloated, which will cause editing to reduce size and we will end up in the same place I am trying to get to today without the effort or "getting into the trenches" as one says. Cowardly? No, just following standard procedure for controversial edits. Asking for consensus on edits on controversial articles is standard procedure on Wikipedia and asking another editor to run those proposed edits by others is standard; how did I create an unfair position for Foxe? I don't get your comments Alan; sorry.

If it is important to know who Smith slapped, I suppose it is just as important to know who he helped, who he healed, what were the rest of his revelations and why the saints were chastised when they did not follow Smith, etc. I have seen Foxe operate before; been there done that. I am not interested in seeing it again. Stop, seek consensus and then edit. How is that different from every other operating procedure on controversial articles? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying, let's follow WP:BRD here. Accept John Foxe's edits as the Bold part; don't require him to get advance permission for them since that can lead to an atmosphere of article ownership. John, in turn, should accept the Revert part of the cycle as the normal way for objections to his edits to be expressed. Then everyone Discusses until the matter can be resolved. Even in a controversial yet relatively stable article such as this, edits don't have to be proposed before making them. John might not have thought his edits were terribly controversial, as they were derived from the Bushman source, so the thought of having to propose them beforehand might not have crossed his mind. I would encourage John to re-revert himself and enter the Discuss phase as a gesture of good faith, and I ask for everyone else to work with John to see how much agreement can be reached on which edits to make. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are saying that is different from what I have said. He was reverted because his edits "in toto" were controversial. Using Bushman is not at issue; although using a single source for any article is not a balanced approach. My point was he cheery picked entirely what he used from Bushman. My question, still unanswered, was which Bushman work was he using. It is easy to check exactly the quote being used and the context of the phrase Foxe is using and then balance the quote used with the "rest of the story".

I will wait to see who quickly Foxe reverts himself. If he doesn't what do you propose we do? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're justified in asking the Bushman question. I also applaud the choice to give John Foxe the opportunity to put the process back on the right path. As to what to do if he does not revert himself and discuss in good faith: determine if there is consensus for his edits. If the group who has commented so far is too small or non-diverse to give consensus one way or the other, invite others to opine (avoiding improper canvassing, of course). If consensus for the edits (or the more controversial parts of them) can't be achieved, take them out. alanyst ^/talk/ 02:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Alan, I can't remember if you had the opportunity to work with Foxe on the Golden Plates article. Working with others; cooperative editing; and other similar activity is not a strong suit of his. That is why I indicated that the only response is to bury the article with similar positive trivia to balance his edits.

He is systematically twisting the article to meet his POV objectives. I assume that one can always hope that people change, but I have been around a while and have become a bit jaded. I will wait and see, but as you notice he has completely ignored your request. Having at least reverted to a semblance of the old section titles demonstrates he read the edits here, but continued with his agenda. The only way to make it work is to continue to revert his edits until he is forced to work with others and discuss his edits. It is a pain in the butt and a colossal waste of time, but experience says it is the only way to make it happen. How much time do you have to help control this? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Per official Wikipedia policy (WP:NPA): "Comment on content, not on the contributor". - Juden (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Those were hardly personal attacks. A Sniper (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Working with others; cooperative editing; and other similar activity is not a strong suit of his".

"He is systematically twisting the article to meet his POV objectives".

A case could be made that the above statements are personal attacks, since they are smarmy comments about the editor. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Subjective. A fine line between a personal attack and a fair description of a user's edit history done in good faith. A Sniper (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments don't have to rise to the level of virulent personal attack to be inappropriate. The policy is: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Note that even the section heading here is a commentary on a contributor. - Juden (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[Unindent.] Making assumptions about editors' motives is unhelpful, but so is calling a good-faith reversion "cowardly, not to mention lazy", and both seem to be violating the spirit if not the letter of the civility policy to a similar degree. But, do we really want this to devolve into an argument over who has accumulated the most Wikipedia policy violations? Can we get past the desire to assign demerits to each other, and look for a way to reach agreement? I believe the core issue at hand is whether the use of a large reliable source is balanced, or is cherry-picked to favor a particular point of view; and if the latter, how best to remedy it. Juden and Duke53, if it were an LDS editor adding only faith-affirming details from Bushman's work to the article, how would you be inclined to resolve the issue? alanyst ^/talk/ 06:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course, once the violations of basic Wikipedia rules stops, we won't have to talk about them. The purpose in addressing the policy is not to assign demerits, but to end the abuse. In answer to your question, the ordinary procedure is to balance the article by adding in the views that you feel are underrepresented. Systematically removing views because you don't like them is inappropriate. - Juden (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider mentioned adding more detail to balance out the POV as a possibility, but demurred on the basis of making the article too long. If you had similar concerns about article length and/or scope, what would be your next approach? alanyst ^/talk/ 06:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Juden and Duke53, if it were an LDS editor adding only faith-affirming details from Bushman's work to the article, how would you be inclined to resolve the issue?" I would balance out the section with sources that I could cite (the way it's intended to be done); but then I would expect that 'someone' would most likely challenge the validity of those sources: you know, the old 'same same'. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

p.s. It's nice to see that policy violations can be so easily excused because ' the other guy does it too'; I'm not sure that it's a valid excuse though. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Alanyst, if there is a consensus that an article is too long, it gets split into daughter articles. That's already happened with this article. It's improper to reduce an article's length by systematically excluding particular views. - Juden (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are two suggestions for your consideration: 1. I propose to refrain from making additional changes to the article for a week. My opponents will then have time to make relevant, documented changes to the sections before "Missouri" that I have already revised. I will respond with my own edits to their changes, or 2. We can invite an impartial, non-involved party to compare the sections I've revised with those I have not. If the observer does not agree that my revisions have improved the article in both style and documentation, then I will go knuckle-dragging off to another article. Please discuss these alternatives and let me know which you think preferable.--John Foxe (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you do not consider me an opponent. As I haven't the vaguest notion what your own background or motivations are re: editing JSJr., I couldn't possibly be opposed to you personally. My only reservations have been the large edits containing negative trivia, while at the same time many editors have worked to trim things down via consensus. I think laying down a gauntlet is unhelpful, especially with offers for impartial or non-involved parties - I also don't think anyone has suggested you skulk off, either...knuckles dragging or not... Best, A Sniper (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As I suspected, Foxe did not revert the contested material and thus ignores any desire to seek consensus for his edits. I began tonight to review the edits and found that several of the statements were not supported by references. For example, nowhere in the JSH does it discuss Joseph Smith using a hat to assist in the translation process. I assume that was an error; however, I deleted that part. If it is re-added, it should be clarified who said what and a more in-depth discussion of all of the methods of translation that have been discussed by scholars.

This is going to be a very, very long article, but it will at least be one that is scrupulously supported by reputable references. It should be fun. At some point, I expect that some degree of logic will evolve and a decision will be made to pare this article down and move it to sub articles, but I guess we need to go through this exercise first. BTW, I deleted the rather unnecessary diatribe on Martin Harris; Martin Harris is linked and if anyone wants to find out about the man they can read the article. The topic of this article is Joseph Smith, Jr.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the outstanding work, Storm Rider. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It will be helpful if any changes are discussed first and implemented later, and made one at a time. It's impossible to discern, for example, which changes were made because the editor believed they weren't supported by references, and which were made for other reasons. There's no shortage of hat references, so I've added some and, if need be, can add others. - Juden (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a rough start, we still need to go back and remove some repetition, realign the natural, appropriate evolution of history. I see Juden is back to his same old same old, but it is expected. My position is that just because something has a reference does not mean it belongs in the article, but this is a controversial topic and it is expected that some editors will revert all deletions out of a knee-jerk reaction rather than participate in a thoughtful discussion about what is best for the topic. It should be fun; there are so many facts that can be added to clarify who Joseph Smith was and his evolution from a rough, country boy to the spiritual leader of thousands of people.

No, I will not be discussing my edits first; I will follow the example of Foxe and just edit, add references to everything I do and move forward. Juden, you supported this type of editing and I will enjoy seeing you defend my efforts the same as you did Foxe. I enjoy it when the the shoe is on the other foot.

I leave it to the rest of you to discuss the issues; I don't have the inclination or the desire to deal with some of the editors who do not add anything to the improvement of the article and only seek contention. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, official Wikipedia policy (WP:NPA) directs that we "Comment on content, not on the contributor". You're free, of course, not to discuss your edits, but if they are not discussed, there can be no consensus in favor of them. And of course, such edits unsupported by consensus are not likely to last long. - Juden (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If that is an invitation to edit war, I will ignore it completely. It is funny how you supported Foxe's edits when there was no consensus to keep them and now, when the shoe is on the other foot, you have become a convert of discuss first and then edit. Please revert my edits when they are not referenced and it would be helpful if you would finally decide which policies you are going to enforce and which ones you aren't. Also, please do not direct any comments about me, just my edits. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, of course that is not an invitation to edit war: it was a statement that changes are properly made by consensus rather than by edit war. I am glad that we have achieved consensus on the fact that edits which are referenced should not be reverted. And, once again, official Wikipedia policy (WP:NPA): "Comment on content, not on the contributor". - Juden (talk) 06:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(newindent) Please follow you own advice: "Per official Wikipedia policy (WP:NPA): Comment on content, not on the contributor." " the ordinary procedure is to balance the article by adding in the views that you feel are underrepresented. Systematically removing views because you don't like them is inappropriate." "It's improper to reduce an article's length by systematically excluding particular views." These may sound familiar; they came from you. Also, please don't forget, per official Wikipedia policy (WP:NPA): ony comment on content, not on the contributor. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course they sound familiar. They are formulations of general principles; they weren't specifically addressed to any particular editor. In fact, the ordinary procedure is to balance the article by adding in the views that you feel are underrepresented; in fact, systematically removing views because you don't like them is inappropriate., and, in fact, it is improper to reduce an article's length by systematically excluding particular views. - Juden (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please observe official Wikipedia policy (WP:NPA): "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Do you have any specific edits that would improve the article you wish to disucss? Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read this conversation with great interest. I have to say that I fully concur with Storm Rider. Major edits that have not been discussed in advance should be reverted. Boldness is one thing. But when major changes are made without offering other editors the chance to have a say in what goes into those changes, I think the line has to be drawn somewhere. After all, major edits made without discussion effectively and effectually cut off the right of other editors to provide feedback that may be helpful in a reformulation of a page or section. I agree with Storm Rider. Juden, have you any specific things you wish to discuss about this article? If you don't, then basically this conversation will continue to go around in circles, with both of you insisting that you are not attacking one another or commenting on one another's edits, but actually getting nowhere as far as solving the actual problems of this article is concerned. Editors see things differently. Problems that seem evident to me may not be so evident to the two of you. And either of you probably see problems that seem evident to you, but I can't see them. That is why discussion is an important pillar of WP editing. If we fail to discuss major edits, then what we do becomes the work of individuals rather than the work of a group. I think we can all agree that our one purpose is to make this page better. Granted, our ideas of how "better" is defined are markedly different, but that's precisely why it takes more than one editor to make decisions about major edits. Those major edits made by individuals WITHOUT discussion ought to be reverted. And this page, rather than being used to attack other editors but claim that no attack is going on, should be used to discuss improvements to the article. NOT the actions of one individual editor, but actual improvements to the article. However, I do maintain that when a breach of WP policy is involved, THAT is perfectly permissible to discuss on article talk pages. That's all that was going on before the personal attacks that were not personal attacks started happening. I say that it's time to bury the hatchet and get back to doing our jobs as WP editors. With that said, I would like to suggest the closure and perhaps archival of this particular subject, and also suggest that we get back to talking about pertinent issues relating to the article. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am more than happy to have all my edits reverted for conversation here IF Foxe's edits are likewise reverted by to the beginning of his recent major editing (behind where I reverted the first time that started this conversation). Rules will either apply to everyone or no one. If Juden, Duke, and Foxe continue to want to project and protect only the negative side, then this conversation is meaningless and I will continue to add pertinent edits by the emminent historian that Foxe prefers, Mr. Bushman. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a revert for the conversation here. I think that having it placed in the archives at its conclusion (whenever that may be) will serve to help other editors know what is NOT pertinent discussion on a talk page. I submit that Foxe probably shouldn't have made all those edits without discussion, and I'm okay with reverting them IF that's what the consensus decides. However, with things as they now stand, what would be wrong with "tweaking" the text as it currently stands to reword the parts you take exception to? What exactly is it that you don't like about Foxe's edits, other than the facts that they appear to be one-sided and were made without a consensus decision? Is there a way we can reword the present content, without offending or attacking Foxe or those who may side with him on this issue? While I agree with what you said at the beginning of this conversation, Storm Rider, I think that if we explore your answers to these questions, we can avoid any grounds of "personal attacks" on either side, and get back to the business of improving this article, doing so in such a way that we neither overlook your objections or offend Foxe by a wholesale revert. I think that perhaps the answers to these questions can be provided in a new topic, which I will create as soon as I sign this post. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions about fixing potential damage done to this article by recent edits.

I'm starting this because while I agree that major edits should not be made without a consensus decision, I do not believe that a wholesale edit would be acceptable or appropriate in this instance. Instead, I suggest a "tweaking" of the material as it now stands, which will neither eliminate the good faith implied in these recent edits nor overlook any objections that might be made to such edits. Along that line of thought, I have some questions about the method behind fixing the potential damage these edits may do to this article. I believe they deserve careful consideration. The questions are as follows:

1. What would be wrong with "tweaking" the text as it currently stands to reword the parts some editors may take exception to?
2. What exactly is it that is not liked about recent edits, other than the facts that they appear to be one-sided and were made without a consensus decision?
3. Is there a way we can reword the present content, without offending or attacking those who may disagree to a wholesale edit?
4. If so, how exactly can that be done?
5. At the end of the day, will these edits truly damage the integrity, accuracy, or verifiability of the issues currently contained in the article?

I believe that careful consideration of these questions will lead to a more peaceful resolution to the problems, real or perceived as they may be, in the article as it now stands. I urge all my esteemed fellow editors to give honest answers about each of these questions, even adding some of their own questions to the list if desired. I believe that in doing so, we can avoid in the future the minor disputes that arose in the past. I hope we can all work together agreeably towards a consensus decision about how to deal with the "damage" done to this article by recent edits. Best wishes for such a peaceful discussion, --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Jg, I have been around for a while and have interacted with each of the involved editors. I tend to learn by experience and thus, do not feel inclined to devote more time than I already have. You will note that I requested discussion above and it was completely ignored except for being told I was cowardly for attempting to gain consensus for edits. Regardless, I will refrain from further addition of referenced edits as long as the article remains quiet. This should at least give you time to determine what caliber of participation in this discussion is generated. Good luck. As an aside, you may find it interesting to review the discussion page archives for Talk:Golden Plates; it will give you a good idea of what you are up against. I know editors of excellent qualification who have stopped editing Wikipedia because of having to constantly contend with that type of nonsense. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider's edits

I appreciate Storm Rider's getting down in the trenches with me and editing section by section rather than resorting to wholesale reversions. (Hard work, isn't it?)

My reedits are explained here:

• Harris should be described as "superstitious" because that was a salient characteristic of his personality, and his superstition speaks to the magic world view of Smith's earliest followers. An attempt to hide Harris's nearly pathological superstition is, of course, POV.
• I've moved the Anthon material to a footnote. It's not a big part of a short biography like this.
• Smith was more than an attender at the Methodist meeting; he was on the roll of an inquirers' class and attracted enough attention there to get that fact recorded in some memories.
• I removed a good deal of material about Smith's dealing with angels. Obviously, experiences like this cannot be confirmed, and unlike say, the First Vision, these heavenly communications have little to do with the story. Of course, for any use of these visions in this article it should be made clear to the reader that "Smith said he was visited by an angel" or "there was no external confirmation" that the interpreters had been removed or restored.--John Foxe (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think both the "honest" and "superstitious" adjectives used to describe Harris come across as indirect attempts to say something about the credibility of Joseph Smith's claims. I think we'd be better off without either adjective. I'll tweak the wording and you guys can decide if it's acceptable. Haven't looked closely at John Foxe's other edits. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't contest you here—although I'd call mention of Harris's superstition a direct attempt to impeach Smith's credibility. Harris was a true naïf. I still think an objective biography of this size should note the magic world view of Smith's earliest followers.--John Foxe (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm...does an attempt to impeach (or, from the other point of view, establish) Smith's credibility belong in a Wikipedia article? Your comment makes it seem like you think it does, but perhaps I am gravely misinterpreting what you meant, and I'd hate to jump to an unwarranted conclusion. Can you clarify what you think is an appropriate approach for a Wikipedia article to take towards its subject's credibility? alanyst ^/talk/ 18:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If Hitler recruited his early associates from among those who believed in the superiority of the Aryan race, would it not be appropriate to mention the fact in his biography? That information (if true) would be perfectly neutral in itself; nevertheless it would tend to reflect on Hitler's character in the eyes of most (though certainly not all) 21st century Americans.

Now, while the translation of the Book of Mormon was going on, Harris said he met Jesus Christ in the shape of a deer. A friend said that Harris's mind "was overbalanced by 'marvellousness'" and that his belief in visitations of angels and ghosts gave him the local reputation of being crazy. Another friend said, "Martin was a man that would do just as he agreed with you. But, he was a great man for seeing spooks."

Explain to me again why the word "superstitious" should not be used to describe Martin Harris in this article?--John Foxe (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of respect for Godwin's law I'll pass on addressing the Hitler analogy. Perhaps you can come up with an example that doesn't carry so much extra emotional baggage?

But to answer your question: I'm sure you know that facts that are neutral when presented by themselves can be put into contexts that lead the reader to certain conclusions. You apparently want the reader to judge Smith in the light of the personality of his associate Harris, but you advocate a negative portrayal of Harris as the important aspect to present. Clearly the conclusion you would like the reader to draw is that Harris was sufficiently gullible to be defrauded by Smith. A staunch LDS editor without concern for neutrality might similarly insist that Harris's honesty be emphasized, to lend credence to Smith's claims about the translation and Anthon episode. Someone who wanted the article to be neutral would try not to lead the reader into conclusions by selectively citing facts that favor one POV or another. Instead, they might try to include both POVs, which was what the "honest yet superstitious" phrase did, but that's continued to be a focus of controversy. Since the article is not about Martin Harris, another reasonable approach would be to forbear with describing Harris's personality at all in this article, and focus on Joseph Smith. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you agree that my reference to Harris as "honest but superstitious" was perfectly NPOV but should be eliminated anyway because it is the "focus of controversy." Certainly. In the interest of reasonableness, I'll agree to that even though it is an attempt to hide significant information about the earliest Mormon believers.--John Foxe (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

With all of this in mind, I would suggest taking a look at the Muhammad article to see the wording that is used to describe how Islamic tradition sees the man. It takes a very NPOV view, in my opinion. The Islam article also uses a very NPOV approach in dealing with religious claims. Oh, and before anyone freaks out about comparisons between JSJr. and Muhammad, I am merely pointing out an article about a man who claimed he received visions and religious manifestations, and how that is dealt with. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts:

• I disagree that Harris' salient characteristic was that he was superstitious. Of course, if we wish to describe the majority of the residents of the world in the early 1800's were not superstitious, then a case might be made for such a point. The problem is that the vast majority of the world, including the US, was superstitious. Harris was a typical citizen of the day. He may have been more successful at farming than the majority of folks, but that is all.

That even Harris's friends made note of his extreme superstition argues that he was not typical. Most farmers in upstate New York weren't accused of wife-beating or adultery either.--John Foxe (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• The reference provided stated he attended briefly with relatives. It does not say anything else. Please do not make a references say something more than it does.

I'll add the additional citations.--John Foxe (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• The point on angels is that Smith reported them. Whether they can be confirmed by another is irrelevant. If we applied the same standard to Paul's experience, we would be in a very sad position. Not talking about them, or minimizing them too much, detracts from the story he told. Let's look closely to make sure we do not go too far. Additionally, no third party confirmation is required to tell Smith's story; his statements speak for themselves as long as they are noted as such.

Smith's statements about his angelic visitations are irrelevant to the story of his life unless they have external consequences, like the First Vision.--John Foxe (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Something I find unacceptable is the use of hearsay and fringe ideas. Using references that are similar to, "Joe Shmuck heard his friend say that Smith's father said..." This is hearsay and no reputable historian uses it to build a position, particularly when it is sensational in nature. Additionally, using a quasi-historian's statements, not covered by major historians, is considered fringe and should not be used under any circumstances for an encyclopedia. Fringe is fringe and its use unbalances and degrades articles. --^StormRider 01:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And presumably you decide what is hearsay, who are reputable historians, and what is considered "sensational." Worth a try anyway.--John Foxe (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your assumption would be wrong again. Historians and the "market" decides. Do you think it is difficult to identify highly regarded authors and works from others who are much less so? Also, hearsay is evident by the mere stating of hearsay. Please read the statement above to catch obvious: "Joe Shmuck heard (this is the first sign of hearsay; note the word HEARD, it is a dead giveaway) his friend say (this is a second sign the person was not involved and does not know; also a dead giveaway) that Smith's father said (this is the third sign that someone is saying someone said something, but it is unverified. If it was verified, we would not use hearsay; also a dead giveaway)..." This really is not difficult. However, if an editor questions their own judgment, just bring it to the discussion page and I am sure other editors will be happy to assist you. Cheers. --^StormRider 16:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Missouri apology for "extermination order"

I have no interest in burying this information. It would be fine to mention it at length in connection with, for instance, the articles on Boggs or the Extermination Order. But such a 1976 apology is irrelevant to a short biography of Joseph Smith like this. Even Bushman gives it only a phrase in a 600-page biography.--John Foxe (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree; mention in a footnote will suffice. alanyst ^/talk/ 15:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - if the Extermination Order is brought up to the casual reader in the article, so should the conclusion to the saga. Most folks interested in the subject will be drawn to the JSJr article, and not to one on Boggs. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My rationale is that there are many many side stories that get mention in the Joseph Smith article that we cannot hope to elaborate upon nor satisfy the reader's curiosity regarding their conclusion, except in their own articles. I view this as one of those. That the extermination order was rescinded in 1976 has no bearing on Joseph Smith's life from what I can see, so including that information seems aimed more at making a statement about the injustice of the original order than it seems aimed at saying anything about Joseph Smith. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to fight over the non-inclusion of trivia such as this. One of the weaknesses of Wikipedia is that when everyone rides their hobby, articles become unreadable.--John Foxe (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a several word reference to the rescinding at the end of the sentence on the EO. The main reference stays in the footnote. There is no need to accuse me of being a Missourian or a Wikipedia hobbyist - that is uncalled for - and I really must question (at JSJr's discussion page, of all places) the implication that the rescinding of an extermination order on North American soil is trivial. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know calling someone a Missourian was an accusation. I know some pretty nice Missourians actually. Let's see what the community has to say about this matter. I remain opposed to the inclusion of the reference, not on any ideological grounds but because of its lack of connection with the life of Joseph Smith. (I remember when Gerald Ford pardoned Robert E. Lee, and I thought that was dumb. In fact, I think I'll unburden myself and apologize right this minute for the Fall of Rome. I'm sure my ancestors were involved in that somehow.)--John Foxe (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia editors do not have to have any connection with an article in order to edit - certainly those with theological axes to grind find their way here - but that is no reason to be insensitive to the history of Mormonism and those folks whose families came through that group. Comparisons to Ford and Lee & Rome are quite off the mark, actually. The Extermination Order is of a specific relationship to Smith, without doubt, and referring to its rescinding (perhaps it being a Bicentennial, cutesy gesture notwithstanding) is not merely Missouri trivia...and mentioning it doesn't necessary denote a Missourian. Most of the information remains in the footnote, but adding a few words to the sentence is certainly not trivia nor the work of a hobbyist. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If there's a specific relationship then you should be able to cite 1. mention of Joseph Smith in the Extermination Order, and 2. mention of Joseph Smith in the apology. You're confusing the biography of Joseph Smith with the early history of the Latter Day Saint movement.

I'd not waste my time grinding theological (or any other sort of) axes over something like this. Just yesterday I disagreed with alanyst on a matter of considerably more ideological importance, and I didn't believe that worth fighting about. But I've always tried hard to maintain the tightest articles that I could under the unusual circumstances that prevail here at Wikipedia.--John Foxe (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate your concern for a tight article, which I share with you. I don't believe I have a record of adding senseless trivia or absurdities to articles. However, the EO holds a particularly strong place within the JSJr. narrative (that being quite parallel to the LDSM narrative), and the conclusion of what began as a state-sponsored vendetta against one man & his followers should at least be mentioned since it has almost no US historical equal. I would argue that the EO was directed by Boggs against JSJr. personally, and any member of his flock as collateral damage, but hope other editors will venture into the discussion to validate this stance. My request is merely to keep the short, half-sentence reference to the rescinding of the order - with all other references in the footnote. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To John Foxe: 1. While Smith was not mentioned in the extermination order, the fact is that the "Mormons" WERE mentioned in it, and Smith was the leader of the "Mormons" at the time it was issued. By implication, therefore, Boggs was in the same breath also saying that Smith should be treated as an enemy, and driven from the state or exterminated if necessary, for the public good. 2. When Chris Bond, the governor of Missouri, issued the rescinding of the aforementioned executive order, he apologized to the "Mormons" on behalf of the state of Missouri, calling Boggs's actions unconstitutional and abominable. As before noted by me, Smith was the leader of the "Mormons" at the time the original order was issued, so in apologizing for the mistreatment of the "Mormons" by Governor Boggs and the citizens of that time, he was also apologizing for the aforementioned implications that the words spoken about the "Mormons" related to Smith as their leader. John, like it or not, if it weren't for Smith, there would BE no Latter Day Saint movement, and thus no history of it. Therefore, anything relating to the Latter Day Saint movement is thus inseparably intertwined with Smith's life. Therefore, BOTH issues are permissible and appropriate for inclusion in the WP article about Smith. I concur fully with all that A Sniper said, and stately as emphatically and vehemently as I am capable of that I think both issues belong in this article, and I will fight tooth and nail if necessary in favor of its inclusion. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Jgstokes, but I respectfully disagree, and reiterate that the apology is an important part of the story of the extermination order—but not the story of Joseph Smith. By your logic you seem to require that everything relating to the Latter Day Saint movement should be explained in this article, which I'm sure you'll agree is an absurd conclusion. Thus most aspects of the movement will have to be treated lightly if at all, and only those that contribute to a better understanding of Joseph Smith belong here. I don't see how Bond's apology (nor Martin Harris's superstitiousness, to use a different example) does that. Obviously there's room for disagreement in many cases, but vowing to fight tooth and nail for something so tangential strikes me as a detrimental approach, especially where the peace here is often fragile and the well of mutual trust and respect frequently runs dry. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would add my support to Alanyst's and Foxe's position on this issue. Mostly I am ambivalent about it being included. It is already shocking enough that in the United States that a religious group was targeted by a state government for extermination. What was the reaction of the Federal government? Having an apology neither makes it easier to understand or makes it more shocking. Truth be told, the apology is pretty milk-toast. I have always thought it was rather weak and too late to have real meaning. Cheers. --^StormRider 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify.

First, to alanyst: I submit that if EVERYTHING about the Latter Day Saint movement were included in this article, it would be bloated beyond ridiculousness. However, I do maintain that things like this are vital to the discussion of Smith's life because they happened during his time period. Bond's apology was in connection with Boggs' extermination order, which in turn was issued against the Latter Day Saints, who were led by Joseph Smith. Therefore, since Smith led the group the extermination order was directed against, the retraction of it has relevancy in this article. There has to be a limit somewhere, on that we can agree. But I do not believe it would be fair to this article to exclude the mention of the overturning of a governmental edict that had an effect on the people Smith led. You will note, alanyst, that my signature contains the statement, "We can disagree without being disagreeable." As I explain on my user talk page, that to me is a core principle of WP conduct. I believe in it, I try to follow it, and I encourage others to do the same. But when I feel strongly about something such as this, I refuse to sit idly by and allow what I feel is a grave injustice to be done. If that, as you said, will serve to be "detrimental," breaking the "fragile peace" and "running dry the well of mutual trust and respect," then I guess I'm guilty as charged. I feel strongly about this issue, and I will do whatever it takes, while being as amicable as the situation deserves, to promote the inclusion of this added information, which I personally feel is acceptable, appropriate, relevant, and important for inclusion in this article. Hope that helps you understand my position better.

Storm Rider, I agree in large measure with what you said about the apology. Mere words don't adequately atone for the damage done by Boggs. The reaction of the Federal Government was captured in the infamous words of one US President that Smith saw (whose name I can't remember at the moment). He said: Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you." and then went on to explain that he couldn't afford to lose the support of the state of Missouri, and that doing so would lose him the next election. It is indeed "Milk toast." However, I still feel that it is relevant for inclusion and have yet to be convinced otherwise. Best wishes to both of you, who I respect more than I can say. Though we have opposing views on this issue, a difference of opinion never hurt. Rest assured that if and when I am convinced of the error of my viewpoint, I will back down. Until that time, I still feel that we can disagree without being disagreeable, and I'm sorry if I crossed that line in my last comment.--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jgstokes - user Foxe has spent a considerable amount of time adding loads of what he considers vital information, but is actually negative-bent LDS Movement history, but on the other hand called several words added to the end of a sentence that merely mentions the rescinding almost 138 years later something akin to Missouri trivia. Now he states he'll continue chopping what he considers bloat, all the while adding almost as much as he chops with his own interpretation of what is vital, and purely JSJr.-oriented. I want to consider Foxe in light of good faith, and have engaged with him as best I can at his talk page, but on the other hand a reading of much of what he adds make things a tad hypocritical because he seems to be the one choosing what is trivial and what is not. Still, I pledged to work together in hopes of getting a better article out of it. But back to the subject of the EO, I merely added less than a sentence, because a conclusion makes sense to mention (I mean, why wouldn't we in five words?) - the bulk of references on the matter are still in the footnote. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because we see other stuff on Wikipedia is not excuse for it to exist there. I stand firmly against the trivia that Foxe adds to the article and when found it should be deleted. However, as can be seen by past history, some editors begin to shout censorship if sometthing has a reference. It is as if nothing exists exist the collection of information and the article be damned. Frankly, I don't know an easy answer. It will take work on behalf of all concerned. The article will either evolve into a well written, balanced article or turn into a bloated monstrosity so full of trivia that it will be useless to the average reader. My objective is to delete trivia and unnecessary information, strive to keep to pertinent, concise information, and move on. You will notice how much trivia gets thrown to the references; this will need to be balanced by the other side. There is a plethora of information on Smith's life that is missing from this article that support his position as prophet, seer, and revelator. Someone should start researching the that aspect and fill out this article (or fill out the reference section) with that information. A book I remember from my youth was "More Precious than Rubies" that told several stories about Joseph and the saints prior to the founding of Nauvoo; however, there are hundreds if not thousands of other sources that could be researched. Cheers. --^StormRider 06:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jared

I've removed the reference to Jared because it had no citation. Even with a citation, it should be made clear that this view is Mormon POV.--John Foxe (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The attic

At this point I think we're beyond the need for a separate section on Joseph Smith's family and polygamy. Other articles on these topics are well referenced in this article. But I thought the excised material should saved; perhaps some of it might be used in the referenced articles or elsewhere.--John Foxe (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Historians agree that Smith taught that polygamy was a divine commandment, and practiced it personally, by many accounts marrying dozens of women before his death. During Smith's life he publicly preached and wrote against the doctrine of plural marriage. The church's scripture, penned by Smith, mentioned polygamy in the 1835 and 1844 Doctrine and Covenants,

“ Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. ”

Affidavits and testimony of many individuals, made after Smith's death, indicate that many of the plural marriages were performed by Smith before his death in 1844, among them two fourteen year old girls, and several women in their 50's. Numerous early converts, including Brigham Young, who claimed to have married Lightner to Smith, Orson Pratt, and Lyman Johnson, asserted that Joseph Smith was teaching plural marriage as early as 1831 or 1832. Smith purportedly received the 1843 polygamy revelation, proclaimed in 1852 by Brigham Young, but Young was unable to produce the original document and declared that Emma Smith had burned it. To this Emma Smith replied that she had never seen such a document, and added concerning the story that she had destroyed the original: "It is false in all its parts, made out of whole cloth, without any foundation in truth." The revelation was codified in Mormon canon by Young in 1876 as part of the LDS Church Doctrine and Covenants 132, but rejected by the RLDS Church as not having been written by Smith. The text of the revelation states that Christ commands the practice of polygamy or plural marriage in a “new and an everlasting covenant” and declares that anyone who rejects the new practices will suffer damnation and will not “be permitted to enter into my glory.” There is also an alleged polygamy revelation that Smith received in 1831. Accusations of polygamy by disapproving Mormons were published in the Nauvoo Expositor in 1844. Smith responded to the polygamy accusations by again publicly denying them and declaring the paper a public nuisance and ordered the paper's printing press destroyed. Smith's subsequent arrest and murder by a mob prompted church members to leave the area, eventually leading to the Mormon Exodus to Utah in 1846–47.

According to Van Wagoner,

“ (Smith's) most pointed denial of plural marriage occurred on 5 October 1843 in instructions pronounced publicly in the streets of Nauvoo. Willard Richards wrote in Smith's diary that Joseph "gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives...Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife". ”

bank failure

the bank failure wikilink is for a bank failure. When it has to do with "Kirtland Safety Society" (especially as a proper noun) there should be some mention of it in the text. It's a deceptive link to say the least.

Perhaps "which remained the headquarters of his church until the Kirtland Safety Society failed, following which widespread persecution..." Lihaas (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Your suggestion has been taken. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Bushman authoritative?

So, what I've walked into here is some kind of LDS-CoC dustup. The light should have dawned sooner. I think we'll be fine, so long as everyone agrees that Bushman is authoritative (although at least one thing you've attributed to Bushman belongs to Brodie).

One thing I definitely oppose is quotations that are not integrated into the text. The use of block quotations is a mark of poor writing. Primary source quotations go in footnotes.--John Foxe (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not referring to me. And you can definitely oppose blockquotes all you want - that doesn't mean they are not appropiate, just that you don't prefer them. Primary quotes go in footnotes? According to whom? And if there is confusion as to what Bushman or Brodie said, by all means fix it - just make sure the allegations/suggestions/suppositions/statements/etc. are attributed to the proper Mormon or ex-Mormon ;) Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I can prove that block quotations equal poor writing. Just collar the first impartial Wikipedian you meet and ask him if he prefers the writing that precedes or follows the heading "Plural Marriage." Dare ya. My writing is both more NPOV and stylistically superior to anything that has appeared in this article before. And by saying so, I'm not reflecting on you or any other editor. I'm just stating a truth that can be documented by polling impartial readers.

Before I go further, we do need to come to some agreement about Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling. Will you agree that Bushman, looking with one eye toward the LDS hierarchy and with the other towards his academic buddies, has written the most NPOV, as well as the most exhaustive, biography of Joseph Smith we have today? In other words, is he NPOV innocent unless proved guilty by other historians and biographers who can document his bias?--John Foxe (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears also that Wikipedia is a place for people with imaginary names to have Herculean egos. Your way of writing or preferences are yours - that's it - we discuss things here; we don't poll. As for Bushman, have you read anything I've written to strongly condemn him? I do not agree with everything that he has written in RSR (re: sources, not anything I object to on dogmatic grounds since my interest in JSJr. isn't from a religious perspective), but that does not mean I have insulted Bushman's integrity or prowess as a historian. Like any non-Mormon, I still feel as if there is a need - with LDS historians - to scan for the POV underlying the data. I probably have more of a problem with Compton's suppositions than Bushman revealing JSJr. warts, many that have been well-known to the non-faithful for well over a century. My main goal is to keep the NPOV - and to allow for balance within an article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure Hercules was literate; he just carried a big stick.

My concern with your recent edits is that you've cited to Bushman consensus positions as if they were his alone. I've been quoting Bushman all along as basic consensus opinion; and only with this section on plural marriage did it appear that you were trying to undermine his authority by making it look as if he held positions that were distinct from other scholars. If there's a reason to do that, fine; but in my opinion, you haven't demonstrated any scholarly disagreement with Bushman's statements in this section. If a Bushman statement presents a position that's not consensus, then that fact should be addressed directly rather than by implying that Bushman is only expressing his opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We cannot assume that Bushman's opinion on everything re: JSJr. is a consensus of historians. My main interest in the edits, and forgive me if this wasn't clear due to haste, was that dangling statements be attributed to whomever, be that Bushman, Compton, or anyone else. If it is your impression that I was knocking Bushman, it simply isn't the case, as I've stated above. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I don't believe that Bushman represents a consensus of historians either—far from it. But my burden is to produce a stylistically graceful article that reflects NPOV consensus and relegates footnote material to footnotes. If a possibly non-consensus quotation from Bushman is warranted, then he should be cited in the text, something that I've tried to do in the earlier material. But where Bushman is simply reflecting consensus, he should not be cited except with a footnote reference. There are a couple of ways to avoid mentioning Bushman in every other sentence. I'll start by paraphrasing some of the material that I've earlier quoted. I'll also try to include more sources, thus adding weight to the notion that this article is grounded in NPOV consensus, not the notions of individuals.--John Foxe (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it, you may need to check your own POV at the door. Sometimes I buy your noble concern about wanting a graceful article, but today's edits unmask something else. What's up John? Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted nothing that can't be documented. NPOV doesn't mean balancing flattering and unflattering. If we wrote about Mark Hofmann, for instance, we wouldn't be required to mention his love for antiquarian books just because saying that he is a murderer is so unflattering.--John Foxe (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

...but we're not writing about Mark Hofmann, John. We're writing about a man, love him or loathe him, who has influenced millions; a religious leader, and not a cold-blooded, sociopathic killer. Smith might be notorious or infamous to you, but that would be an inner POV you need to work out as an editor. Regardless, if you look over your choice of words, you are indeed doing some spinning. I hope you don't mind me mentioning it - I've endured a couple of your barbs - and I haven't lived in Missouri since I was in my early 20s. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that last edit was fair & balanced. Yes, sometimes shorter is indeed better. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove POV Line

Please could we remove the line 'Some measure of common sense had begun to return to Missouri leaders' because it seems highly judgemental. I have refrained from doing so myself because I am new to wikipedia, and am unsure. Also, why is there only one mention, and that in passing, of Smith's conviction on Bank Fraud? It seems to me that some mention of this should be made in the introductory remarks... eg "J Smith was a religious leader, politician and convicted fraudster." Thanks (Captain hoek talk) 21:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

The "some measure of common sense" line is indeed judgmental; but it's the judgment (though not the exact words) of Richard Bushman, the author of the most complete biography of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith was guilty of many things, but he was never adjudged by a court to be guilty of bank fraud.--John Foxe (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm not the biggest fan of the Bushman text, John Foxe is correct that it is a valuable source on the subject of JSJr. - and he's also right about JSJr. not being a convicted fraudster. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, on the second point, fair enough. However, I still think that it is unjustified to use the line 'some measure of common sense had began to return to Missouri leaders' when your sole justification for its use is Richard Bushman, a member of the LDS movement. (although i accept this NOT make him a bad source) I can't imagine a scenario in which an encylopedia would use the expression 'common sense' without at least qualifying it. Furthermore 'begun to return' implies that the Missouri leaders were, by and large, still lacking common sense. Even in an article about a subject such as slavery (with which I'm sure we all disagree) it isn't appropriate to accuse the leaders of the Confederacy with madness or lack of morals, in the context of an encyclopedia. Even if ALL of the most notable authors on slavery write that it was morally wrong/a failure of leadership/bad governance we do not include these opinions in encylopedias. Normative claims should be left alone, I think. Why not write something like 'Missouri leaders, in this period, stopped percieving the LDS as a political threat.'? Or just delete the line! thanks (Captain hoek (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

Fawn Brodie, not noted for her sympathy to Joseph Smith, wrote: "The Turner Committee saw at once that it was handling dynamite. The evidence attempting to prove the Mormon leaders guilty of treason was flimsy....This was the beginning of one of the most egregious whitewashings in the history of American state politics." (247)

Since the "common sense" line is neither quoted nor attributed (and hence is probably a copyright violation) as well as being a blatant editorial comment, I reworded it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the line 'effectively forcing the Saints to move to Clay County' confuses me. Who are the Saints? are we calling Smith and others saints here? that is a POV. (Diabulos (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Not in this context. In the common use of the term, it refers to someone who is above reproach/incredibly pious. Within the Latter-day Saint movement, the "Saints" are simply members of the Church or followers of the movement. It doesn't indicate anyone's moral qualifications or piousness. That's not how it's used here and it shouldn't be confusing to anyone who fully reads the article. Just my $.02...— Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. We're discussing the Latter Day Saint movement, and "Saints" (capital "S") is simply shorthand for "Latter Day (or Latter-day) Saints."--John Foxe (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

MORE POV!

Very similar to my above complaint. Why ON EARTH is there a sentence that says 'Chief among them was the cowardly former leader of the Danites, Sampson Avard, who whitewashed himself and heaped blame on Rigdon and Smith'? "Cowardly?!" Again, I'm sure that you'll argue that the great LDS historian Bushmancalled him cowardly (and therefore its an encylopedic fact). But seriously. In an article about Adolf Hitler, do we write "Adolf Hitler was an evil leader" or Adolf Hitler was a coward who..."? N0! Because all of this is contention. (Captain hoek (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

It is quite difficult to imagine comparisons between Adolph Hitler and JSJr. Quite over-the-top & ridiculous... A Sniper (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed!!!!!!! That was not what I was saying. What i was saying was that we do not use normative words to describe Hitler so, why then, do we use these words to describe Sampson Avard!!!!???? (Captain hoek (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

I eliminated the word "cowardly." Avard certainly was a blackguard and a coward, but it's not worth arguing about.--John Foxe (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

haha, I'm sure he was. Thanks (Captain hoek (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

Stoical, harsh and 'Skill and tact

Hi guys, would like to hear your opinions on the lines "Joseph bore his harsh imprisonment stoically.[76] Smith wrote to his followers "with skill and tact". My impression, once again, is that 'stoically' and 'harsh are both POV. Perhaps, instead of 'harsh' we could use a specific adverb such as 'lengthy' or 'unprecedented' in order to make the claim more factual. As for 'Stoical', again it seems to be a POV (although i see you added a good reference, and perhaps he is deserving of the word). On the otherhand it seems a little ironic (and perhaps confusing) to compare a Christian with stoicism seeing as stoicism was connected to pagan beliefs. Again i understand that the meaning of the word has changed however, to avoid confusion, perhaps we can use the word 'well' or 'in good grace' which would be more ellucidating than Stoically. My criticism of 'skill and tact', yet again, is that it is a POV (albeit a referenced POV). Thanks (Captain hoek (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Of course that's POV stuff, but what you really ought to be looking at is how much of this stuff has been lifted directly from other sources. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So, Bugs, is it appropriate if it lifted from other sources? Wouldn't that be plagarism? (I'm not sure what you mean by 'lifted'...) Conceeding that it is referenced, does that mean this stuff should all remain? Thanks alot for your input(Captain hoek (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

It's appropriateness can be debated, but if it's a verbatim quote it needs to be in quotation marks with proper attribution. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that John Foxe has changed this section. Thanks. I'm still not entirely comfortable with it but i think its an improvement. (Captain hoek (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Sounds bad

The first sentence of "Liberty jail" says "The prisoners were then transferred to the jail at Liberty, Missouri, the Clay County seat, to await trial." I have a slight aesthetic problem with this. One is unable to understand the first sentence of this section without having read the section above. I think we should change it to something like 'Following their conviction the prisoners were transeferred to the jail.....'(Captain hoek (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

The court procedure in Richmond was only an inquiry. Smith was held over for trial but then "escaped." So, although he was imprisoned in Liberty jail for some months, he was never convicted of anything.--John Foxe (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree, but as a Wikipedia editor, you can make a change and see what the other editors think. On the other hand, I would state that the entire article is meant to be a narrative that flows, therefore I don't believe anyone would just read one paragraph in an isolated way, unable to comprehend the meaning because they hadn't read the previous sentence. Uh, I mean virtually anyone. And please place a tildes after your posting so that we know who you are. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the tildes. I just thought it sounds clumsy. Maybe 'subsequently the prisoners were....' - but whatever, not a big deal (Captain hoek (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

Explanations needed for major reversions

No one has explained, not even in edit summaries, why significant additions that I recently made to the article have been summarily reverted. What is your rationale for this decision?--John Foxe (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's usually up to the person adding new information to present a rationale. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Anyone adding or removing information owes some sort of explanation or rationale. It's arrogant and uncooperative to expect your co-editors to divine your reasons for making changes: you're expected to state them, either within the edit summary (if the explanation is short and unlikely to be controversial) or on the talk page (if the explanation is longer or controversial.) - Juden (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture Caption

Don't like to be a pedant, but the picture caption has been changed and i don't want to start an editing war. The picture caption said "Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon by examining stones in his hat." (which is an improvement on "Joseph Smith wrote the book of Mormon", as he didn't actually write it.) however, i still think it is POV. Imagine yourself in the position of a non-mormon. Does a non-Mormon have proof that Joseph smith dictated the book of Mormon by examining stones in his hat? No, indeed, a non-mormon could believe that there was no connection between the stones in the hat and Smith's dictation of the book of Mormon. So, in order to make the statement acceptable to Mormons and non-mormons, i have changed the caption to be 'Joseph Smith claimed to have dictated the Book of Mormon by examining stones in his hat.' Let me know what you think. cheers (Captain hoek (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Did you read the article? Footnote 19 contains a brief and non-exhaustive list of witnesses who noted the fact that Smith peered into his hat while dictating the Book of Mormon. It's not "Smith's claim", it's well-established fact. It's inappropriate of you to insert doubt where there is none. I've changed it back. - Juden (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay Juden, your point is granted, but misses the point. I am aware of the sources, however I am not debating whether or not smith looked into the hat while dictating the Book of Mormon! I am arguing that the statement 'Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon by examining stones in his hat' is not FACTUAL. The word "BY" implies that the action of looking at the stones in the hat informed Smith's dication. However, this is not verifyable! WE could change it to Joseph Smith dictated the book of mormon WHILE looking at stones in a hat". The difference is very nuanced, and probably pedantic, however, I think it is valid. I will not start an "edit war" by changing it back mself but i hope you can appreciate my point. Kind regards (Captain hoek (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Frankly, there's no such implication in the present caption - you'd almost have to willfully misread it to find one there - but if you think there is, change "by" to "while". Much better than inserting weasel words like "claimed". - Juden (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how 'Claimed' is a weasel word. After all, was it not a claim of Smith's that he dictated the book of Mormon BY looking at stones? Can you find me a reliable source that will convince me (or any other non-Mormon) that looking at the stones actually helped him translate the plates? I'm sure you can find plenty of sources that convince me that he did indeed look at the stones and that he subsequently dictated the book of Mormon. However, this is entirely different from the "claim" (and that is all it was) that the book of Mormon was a consequence of looking at the stones. However, its not a big issue and i can't be bothered arguing about it. 'While' is fine by me. (Captain hoek (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

There is absolutely nothing disputed about the process by which Smith dictated the Book of Mormon: He looked at stones in a hat and spoke words which were written down by others. That's exactly the same as saying "Smith dictated the Book of Mormon by looking at stones in a hat.". The only disputable thing is whether he "saw" the words, and that was left out of the caption for precisely that reason. As for "claimed", it's a weasel word when no one has claimed otherwise: it's your quibble portrayed as if it were an actual scholarly issue, and it's unattributed. - Juden (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Juden. The definition of "by", in the sense that we are using it is "By: in consequence, as a result, or on the basis of"(Free online dictionary). Therefore, saying "by" is the same as saying "as a result of". I hope we both agree with this!:) Therefore if we substitute "as a result of" the caption reads "Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon as a result of examining stones in his hat." Did he really? Was it a RESULT of looking at the stones? WHO KNOWS? What we do know, as you have so eloquently pointed out, is that Smith did dictate the book of Mormon while looking at stones! I 100% with your statement "He looked at stones in a hat and spoke words which were written down by others.". Can you really not see the difference between this statement and the statement "Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon as a result of examining stones in his hat." This isn't My "quiblle", this is about not stuffing this article full of conjecture. regards (Captain hoek (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

No, Captain hoek, that's the definition that you have selected from an online dictionary, not the one that we are using. "By" is a preposition indicating instrumentality, and perfectly appropriate. He used stones and a hat to dictate the Book of Mormon; he dictated the Book of Mormon by using stones and a hat. - Juden (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever definition you want to give to 'by' it is WRONG. Simple as that. If you define 'by' as a preposition indicating instrumentality it still isn't fair. Let me explain (again). If you say 'John copied a poem by breathing' then, the implication is that the act of breathing DIRECTLY influenced his copying of the poem. On the other hand. If you said John copied a poem while breathing, then you are not tying the concept of breathing to the concept of copying. Similarly, in the caption when you say that "Joseph Smith dictated the BOM by looking at the stones...." you are really saying that the act of looking at the stones DIRECTLY influenced his dictation. There is ample evidence that while looking at stones he did dictate the BOM. However, it is mere conjecture to say that the stones were the source of the BOM. This is simply Smith's claim. Indeed others did see him looking at the stones And dictating the BOM. However, was looking at the stones instumental in his dictation of the BOM? It is unclear and so your "preposition of instrumentality" ought to be deleted. :)(142.151.165.246 (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

historians?

My observation is that in some sections, particuarly those in which Smith is percieved to have been cast in a bad light by historians, the wording subtly changes. For example it says that 'historians have claimed that Smith secretly wed'... rather than simplyy 'smith secretly wed' the implication being that historians may be wrong. (Captain hoek (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Yes, and in places a Wikipedian is placing his doubt in the mouths of commentators who expressed none. It too is inappropriate, and any place that says "Commentator X says Y may have married Z" should be changed to "Commentator X says Y married Z" unless Commentator X actually expressed doubt. - Juden (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. (Captain hoek (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Hoek, are you saying that because a historian says it, it must be correct or true? There is a gross difference between saying, "Historian X states Joseph Smith..." versus "Joseph Smith..." I am not aware of historians always being in agreement or about any historian being the most accurate.

Understand what I am proposing: where there is disagreement between historians, it is appropriate to attribute who is saying what. It is not appropriate to state X states JS "may have..." unless the source actually states the same doubt. --^StormRider 00:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Storm Rider, that is not what I am saying. I agree with you that there is a 'gross difference between saying "Historian X states Joseph Smith..." versus "Joseph Smith..."'.

In light of this, I think it is strange that in some parts of the article which are critical of Smith, the words "historian x states that Joseph Smith" are used. This implies that there is historical conjecture and, if this is the case, it ought to be made more clear.

Storm, I think if you read my original post you will find we are in agreement. (Captain hoek (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

I am responding to (Captain hoek who asked for my thoughts at my talk page. I personally think that if I, as an editor, believe there is consensus among historians, that is still a POV. This is why I strive to always note which historian said what and not merely to make assumptions that something is therefore an actual fact, simply because five historians proclaim it so. Maybe this is because I'm a lawyer, and I see the difference between actual fact and legal fact. I have no trouble using a source that disagrees with what I personally believe (i.e. what I believe is actual fact), as long as that source is clearly identified. Storm Rider has wondered why I would continually include an Emma Smith quote (i.e. something she wrote herself in a publication) if I also know it to be a lie (false). The answer is because Emma Smith stated it, even if the consensus of historians is that what she is stating is s lie. For me, it is a falsehood NOT to include the person's statement from a primary source, if reliable. if the natural conclusion is that the historical figure is therefore liar, so be it. Therefore, what Juden says is true: we should not cast doubt in a historian's claim where none exists, but we should try to allow the reader to know who it is who states what - even if several historians/biographers/writers agree. I wonder how many writers believed (because they wrote it) that such-and-such kid was Joseph Smith's lovechild, right up until they found out that DNA evidence positively excluded the possibility? If we merely write assuming that things are actual fact (i.e. Joseph had lovechild A), without making it clear that so-and-so historian has written this, or that there is a consensus of historians, then we have assisted in POV - because even a group of writers could hold something spurious as being actual fact. Going back to the case of Emma Smith, if a group of modern historians/biographers/writers agree, based on their research, that she took part in/witnessed/knew about Joseph Smith's polygamous marriages, but she herself denied it time and time again, and made a clear statement as to the first time she became aware of specific accusations, we do ourselves a disservice as editors if we gently brush aside those statements/denials - instead they should be boldly included, letting readers reach their own conclusions based on the NPOV of the article (which would be that the lady is a liar, that the lady was misquoted, that the lady was telling the truth and the modern historians are out to lunch, etc.). Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Attic 2

This material, apparently the result of an earlier edit war, is so wordy and so littered with non-essential quotations and the detritus of battle that it no longer tells a story, nor does it any longer deal directly with our subject, the life of Joseph Smith, Jr. I've put the material here in case some of it proves useful to readd to this article or for use at Emma Hale Smith, John C. Bennett, or Sidney Rigdon.--John Foxe (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Emma Smith herself repeatedly denied throughout her life that her husband had ever taken additional wives and Bushman has suggested that she "had no idea of the extent of her husband's practice." Emma claimed that the very first time she ever became aware of polygamy being attributed to Joseph was when she read about it in Orson Pratt's booklet The Seer in 1853. During the spring of 1842, the Ladies' Relief Society was created within the church and Emma was made president. Bushman supposes that Emma could not have known at the time that her able assistants in this venture were already her husband's plural wives. Emma was involved in campaigns to publicly condemn polygamy and deny any involvement by her husband. Emma authorized and was the main signatory of a petition in Summer 1842, with a thousand female signatures, denying Joseph was connected with polygamy. As president of the Ladies' Relief Society, Emma authorized the publishing of a certificate in October 1842 denouncing polygamy and denying her husband as its creator or participant. In March 1844, Emma published "we raise our voices and hands against John C. Bennett's 'spiritual wife system', as a scheme of profligates to seduce women; and they that harp upon it, wish to make it popular for the convenience of their own cupidity; wherefore, while the marriage bed, undefiled is honorable, let polygamy, bigamy, fornication, adultery, and prostitution, be frowned out of the hearts of honest men to drop in the gulf of fallen nature". Ultimately, Emma denied on her deathbed that the practice of polygamy had ever occurred. Emma stated,

“ No such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of...He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have. ”

During Smith's life he publicly preached and wrote against the doctrine of polygamy. When Smith temporarily left Ohio in 1835, W. W. Phelps introduced an antipolygamy resolution in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting that was unanimously adopted by a church assembly and published in versions of the canonical Doctrine and Covenants during Smith's lifetime. In writing about this antipolygamy section in October 1842, Smith noted "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again....We have given the above rule of marriage as the only one practiced in this church".

According to Van Wagoner "The prophet's most pointed denial of plural marriage occurred on 5 October 1843 in instructions pronounced publicly in the streets of Nauvoo. Willard Richards wrote in Smith's diary that Joseph gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives.... 'Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife.'"Van Wagoner also mentions that "when incorporating Smith's journal into the History of the Church, church leaders in Utah, under Brigham Young's direction, deleted ten key words from this significant passage and added forty-nine others".

Published allegations of adultery against Sarah Pratt and Bennett appeared in local and church publications with signed affidavits from her neighbors Stephen and Zeruiah Goddard and others. Dr. Robert D. Foster made the following allegation against Bennett and Pratt:

“ Alas, none but the seduced join the seducer [Dr. Bennett]; those only who have been arraigned before a just tribunal for the same unhallowed conduct can be found to give countenance to any of his black hearted lies, and they, too, detest him for his seduction, these are the ladies to whom he refers his hearers to substantiate his assertions. Mrs. White, Mrs. Pratt, Niemans, Miller, Brotherton, and others. ”

Pratt later claimed that Zeruiah Goddard told her these testimonies were made under threat from Joseph's brother Hyrum Smith:

“ It is not my fault; Hyrum Smith [Joseph's brother] came to our house, with the affidavits all written out, and forced us to sign them. Joseph and the Church must be saved, said he. We saw that resistance was useless, they would have ruined us; so we signed the papers. ”

The author Richard S. Van Wagoner concluded that the adultery charges against Sarah Pratt are "highly improbable" and could "be dismissed as slander." In addition to Sarah Pratt, Van Wagoner states that Nancy Rigdon and Martha Brotherton, "also suffered slanderous attacks because they exposed the Church's private polygamy posture." Orson Pratt stood by his wife Sarah in preference to the denials of Smith, who told his disciple Orson that "If [Orson] did believe his wife and follow her suggestions he would go to hell". Wilford Woodruff stated that "Dr. John Cook Bennett was the ruin of Orson Pratt". Bennett was excommunicated on June 23,1842. Van Wagoner and Walker note that, on August 20, 1842, "after four days of fruitless efforts at reconciliation, the Twelve excommunicated Orson Pratt for 'insubordination' and Sarah Pratt for 'adultery'".

Sidney Rigdon wrote a letter to the Messenger and Advocate in 1844 condemning the church's Quorum of the Twelve and their alleged connection to polygamy,

“ It is a fact so well known that the Twelve and their adherents have endeavored to carry on this spiritual wife business … and have gone to the most shameful and desperate lengths to keep from the public. First, insulting innocent females, and when they resented the insult, these monsters in human shape would assail their characters by lying, and perjuries, with a multitude of desperate men to help them effect the ruin of those whom they insulted, and all this to enable them to keep these corrupt practices from the world. ”

Smith purportedly received the 1843 polygamy revelation on July 12, although this was not published until 1852 in Utah. Smith taught doctrines which he claimed were practiced in the early Christian church such as Baptism for the dead. He also is purported to have introduced other teachings and ordinances such as the Endowment, and "the principle" of plural marriage neither of which are found in mainstream Christianity. Smith continued to publicly condemn polygamy and in May 1844 referred to those accusing him of practicing it as "perjurers".

Enough attics

Isn't it interesting how John Foxe assumes to know what belongs in the attic and what does not. Hmmm... A Sniper (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy revision

I've replaced older material in this section with new, narrative content that is more concise, more readable, well-referenced, and is better focused on Joseph Smith, Jr. I expect editing to be adequately explained.--John Foxe (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits appear like thinly-veiled POV attempts at pushing an agenda, pushing your own narrative style (as opposed to the consensus of editors), and a wholesale discarding of material you yourself have determined doesn't fit the JSJr. POV profile you wish to appear. More readable? According to whom? You seem to think that a small cabal of Mormon/ex-Mormon writers have the final say on everything that happened historically. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If my revision is POV, then point out what's POV and we'll fix it together as we have above. As for the narrative style: one reason why I saved the old material in the "attic" is so that any other editor can appreciate the difference if he chooses to. I'm not sure who the "small cabal of Mormon/ex-Mormon writers" is—everyone from Richard Bushman to Fawn Brodie I assume—but you haven't provided an alternative.--John Foxe (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

He asked for an explanation. So give him one. I like "thinkly-veiled" though:)Hi540 (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I like Westminster Confession of Faith myself, and how you immediately assume a user debating John Foxe is a 'Mormon' ; A Sniper (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're a Mormon because you accused Foxe of pushing the material of "a small cabal of Mormon/ex-Mormon writers." OK, put your own writers on deck. Who are they? I notice that you don't actually deny being a Mormon. Come to think of it, maybe you consider yourself a "Latter-day Saint" or a "Latter Day Saint" rather than a "Mormon."Hi540 (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, Hi540 - you're focusing too much on me instead of the edits. I don't know who the hell you are, other than a Bob Jones buddy of Foxe. Regardless, I'm not a Mormon or member of any Latter Day Saint church. This I've always made clear. But what you've written above does show your POV - why exactly are you over here editing and what is your agenda? I mentioned Mormon/ex-Mormon because Foxe draws all references from either Mormons or axe-grainding ex-Mormons, other than one historian. A Sniper (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I came close to reverting your edit this evening, but I wanted to warn you here. Why would you report that Emma said she did not learn of Joseph's marriages until 1853 in Pratt's publication? You know she knew about it earlier because she has been documented as being in attendance to some of the early marriages. When you know something is true, why discuss what is obviously false? What is not made clear is why was there such a conflict in the statements made by Smith and Emma in regards to plural marriage? Why was it denied by both of them and who says it. Instead of repeated falsehoods the article would be better off deleting all of it. However, the better action is to write something of value rather then till over obviously bad information. I am more than willing to just delete all of this until compromise wording can be achieved here on the discussion page. --^StormRider 05:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be quite alots of Ad hominem going on here. Hi540, it doesn't matter if an editor is a Mormon or not. What is important is that we build consensus. Infact its valuable to have Mormon editors to make sure people like you and i do not ruin the article with POV's. (Captain hoek (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

I apologize to A Sniper for misjudging him. I was hasty in my judgment here, so I wanted to apologize here as well.Hi540 (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. It shouldn't matter what an editor's interests or background are, as long as NPOV is maintained - even if it is rough going along the way to a good article. And I certainly want to apologize to anyone who may have taken offence that I was declaring myself not a Mormon (is if being a Mormon was something negative) - this came out wrong - I was merely upset at being accused of being something I am not, and upset that the accusation was done in an attempt at disclosing an alleged POV. At least a couple of the users I most admire on here are LDS - and they are fair-minded and well-balanced editors (they are Storm Rider and Descartes1979). Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, I don't know how you are going to react to this statement, but I figure just to say it anyways. I was reading over the polygamy section of Joseph Smith and his plural marriages. I realize that there are quite a few valid and sustainable quotes used, but I have to ask if, at least to you, it doesn't seem a little one sided. It seems that, to me as a reader, as I was looking over that section, the general overall atmosphere produced by the section gave the impression that Joseph Smith somehow forced the women to be his wives. There may be sources pointing to just that exact inclination, but I too know a little about Smith and I think overall it would be much more beneficial and less POVish maybe to provide the fact that this practice was taken under mutual consent...rather than portraying Smith as a dictatorial monster using God as an excuse to have multiple wives. Not only does this seem to mock the actions of Smith, it also gives an incredibly Non-Mormon feeling. I don't have as much access to sources and am not as "weathered" in the field of doing such research, but it is my asking you as a favor to search for a quote/evidence giving more of a neutral, enlightened message in the overall theme of this section. This section as it is causes confusion and disorder when talking about an incredibly influential member of American society, whether you are mormon or not. W.Neelmore (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by W.Neelmore (talk • contribs) 21:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Foxe's changes

Foxe has gotten it more or less right once again—clear, to the point, and forthright. I'm sure his edits can be improved, but further edits need to be explained paragraph by paragraph.--Hi540 (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As a Bob Jones buddy of Foxe, it is clear you have come aboard to do nothing more than support POV snipes at the subject matter. This is revealed in your anti-Mormon bias on this page, not to mention anti-Smith barb in the edit summary. Perhaps they need you over at Billy Sunday? Not even Foxe would bottom feed in this way, an I'm a little surprised he hasn't drawn the line yet. A Sniper (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, Mormon sites tend to be a lot more volatile and nasty than fundamentalist sites. And even Billy Sunday, which gets more juvenile vandalism than most, has been remarkably stable since I finished a complete rewrite.

I won't argue that what I've written is of higher quality than what you are trying to preserve—though it is. It's only necessary to point out that my references come from the spectrum of scholarly work on Joseph Smith whereas the older material is based entirely on Mormon materials and is therefore more POV. And Hi540 is at least correct when he says that the quotations from Smith are non-encyclopedic. They only obfuscate the story. (I don't want to add to the slings and arrows directed against the profession, but including non-communicating prose to documents is such a stock in trade for lawyers that it illustrates why "legal writing" has to be taught in the first year of law school.) My objective here is to tell an NPOV and readable story that can be understood even by high school students who are looking for a quick something to plagiarize.--John Foxe (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely you did not write that with a straight face? You have admitted before that your purpose is to write from a negative POV and if anything else is to be added it will be the responsibility of others. Higher quality as judged by you is not an objective standard. When you toot your own horn so loudly, one sees a sign of a lack of self-confidence. Your writing is slanted, seeks fringe to sensationalize a topic. What is needed is neutrality and an objective approach to the topic at hand.

Please do not confuse historians with neutrality; that all have a position and for some it is a bigger problem than it is for others. The Ostlings are a good example; two people with master's degrees and Evangelical Christians does not connote a superior knowledge or neutrality. They are a reputable source, but don't begin to tell the full story of Latter Day Saint movement. They are more in the line of Brodie where positive historical fact is ignored when it conflicts with their thesis. Quoting a group of historians and focusing only on negative information does not produce a neutral article. It produces a slanted article that appeals to personal POV. Let's all try to be at least a little honest and forget the subterfuge. --^StormRider 19:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no subterfuge. I've quoted the Ostlings and I've quoted Brodie. But I've also quoted Jan Shipps and Richard Bushman and others of indeterminate ideological position. Plus I've incorporated many LDS citations that were in the article when I got here. The article is far more NPOV now than when it was simply a playground for Mormons and anti-Mormons grinding their respective axes. It also makes for much better reading. (People who like to "toot their own horn" frequently have personality problems. Lack of self-confidence is rarely one of them.)--John Foxe (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

John, your own words let slip your ignorance of the subject matter. Jan Shipps? Anyone (I mean other than perhaps a Bob Jones University grad, 'born again Christian' trying merely to discredit a cult leader) deeply into this subject knows that Shipps is a non-Mormon historian with no ideological agenda based on their own religious swing. What you've been is merely a johnny-come-lately who waltzed into the article with a large head. Some of us have sincerely tried to work with you as best we can. The justice of it all will be that, slowly and over time, your 'handiwork' will be butchered, carved up and a nice filet for yet more editors. Eventually you'll move on to someone else - perhaps Jim Jones (maybe a cousin of the other Jones family?), Mary Baker Eddy or Charles Taze Russell... A Sniper (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've met Jan Shipps and heard her lecture on several occasions. She's a very nice lady. If I were a better photographer, I would have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons a picture that I took of her several years ago during an interchange she had with Richard Bushman.--John Foxe (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotations from Joseph and Emma

Long exculpatory quotations would be perfectly fine—even necessary—in a book length study of Joseph or Emma Smith; but they have no place in an encyclopedia article. We all agree that both denied that Joseph was practicing polygamy. If you think their actual words are necessary, they can go in the footnotes.--John Foxe (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, these are your opinions and nothing more. What you really meant is that these undisputed, primary source quotes do not fit in with the shaping of the article as you see it - this is why, as Storm Rider has pointed out, you've chosen the most sensational aspects of JSJr to 'promote'. If you have a problem, make a complaint - go get a mediator - or wait for consensus. I'll continue to strive for NPOV, balancing your long-winded quotes from historians/biographers with quotes from the article subject himself. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide proof of those charges.--John Foxe (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

...and please check the talk page before you continue to edit as if the article is your own property - it isn't. A Sniper (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

All I've seen from you, Sniper, is ad hominems directed against Foxe. You've said he had a "large head," that he was ignorant about the religious position of Jan Shipps, you've said that he was a graduate of Bob Jones University—"maybe a cousin" of Jim Jones—and a "born again Christian" trying to discredit Joseph Smith. But you've not tried to defend your edits.--Hi540 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. You're truly one to talk, Hi540 - you volunteered to come here to assist Foxe, and immediately started name-calling. The large head comment is the only way to describe Foxe's own words about himself, his importance as an editor, etc. He is the one who noted confusion over Shipps' background. You know obviously he is from BJU, and isn't it part of the mix there that one be a BAC? The Jim Jones reference was to possibly being a cousin of Bob Jones, Sr. (uh, wasn't that osort of obvious?) My edits are already defended. Unlike you, I have been editing this article in terms of years, not days, concerned with consensus and not bullying folks in an effort to prove one's handiwork. A Sniper (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sniper, have you read any historians that discussed the difference between Bennett's concept of spiritual wifery, which had no marriage component, and plural marriage espoused by Smith? Some of the quotes being used seem to equate the two. --^StormRider 19:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Storm Rider. Yes, of course. What I am trying to do, despite the efforts of Foxe and his buddy, is to merely quote JSJr's words from a month before his death, and let reader's decide whether his thoughts on the indictments and Law are relevant. Same with the deathbed statement of ES. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it best to ignore, but that is only tolerable for so long. I should go back and reread the article, but I don't think a definite distinction between the two has been made. I think it will lead to a conversation about what exactly was Smith denying. Also, it might be helpful to not only include what Smith said, but why he said it based upon historical "look-back". --^StormRider 20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that the quotations insisted upon by A Sniper are nonsensical and non-encyclopedic. There's no ideology at stake that I can detect, just one editor's decision to fight any decision that challenges his ownership of an article that he's been "editing in terms of years." So why not show good faith to the non-Mormon position and delete those quotations? --John Foxe (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Foxe, I am not sure I agree with Sniper, but I am willing to ask questions. I currently am not satisfied that it is as it should be, but I only have so many hours in the day. The objective is to make sure plural marriage is covered enough for this article without including overly much; the sub article is the place for most of the nitty-gritty. To me what needs to be covered is that plural marriage existed, Smith practiced it, an explanation of what it was and Smith's views of its purpose, and its impact upon the Smith's life and the Latter Day Saint movement, which is his legacy. If we go farther than that we risk an imbalance the article. --^StormRider 00:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my dark thoughts, but if it had been me who had added those inane quotations, you would have deleted them in a blink and given me a 3revert warning the second time they showed up. In was in your power to have prevented yesterday's edit war; and in the process you might have generated some good will by your evenhandedness. I understand why you stood aside, and I'm not angry with you, but I keep hoping that we can join hands to make this article a first-rate one, one that believers and non-believers can support together against vandals and wackos.--John Foxe (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious who you consider a wacko. A Sniper (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We all recognize "wackoness" when we see it; usually it comes complete with an IP address. For instance, an anonymous editor recently suggested that Smith fell out the Carthage jail window "to draw the fire away from his other still living companions."--John Foxe (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll certainly agree with you on this one. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

ES & JSJr. statements

Before the brief and unfortunate edit war, I made several attempts at countering the reverts of including two statements: one from ES, and the other JSJr. These are from credible primary sources - my reasoning for inclusion is that it allows a reader to get a balance between what present-day writers have written and what the individuals stated on the record, even if this is at odds. At the very least, it is truthful (even if some perceive this as hypocrisy or deception); readers reach their own conclusion without being led by anyone's POV. We already know that Storm Rider was ambiguous about it (as he stated a need to go over the spiritual wifery vs. plural marriage issues raised by the narrative. Foxe and his friend Hi540 were against inclusion. In any event, I'm making another run for the border with this. I would ask that one read the preceding paragraph(s) to get a sense of the historian/writer perspective placed against the statements: Emma counters in her own words charges leveled at her during her life and posthumously; Smith, a month before his death, states specifically about the indictments (already mentioned in the article) and, most importantly, Law. Thanks for the consideration. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Such quotations are non-encyclopedic. Books of primary sources exist, and that's the proper place for long quotations like these. Furthermore, the statements of Joseph and Emma are not credible. No historian of any persuasion takes them seriously. That's because both Joseph and Emma lied.--John Foxe (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is again your opinion. Whether or not they lied, these statements remain their statements, and you cannot prove otherwise. Why are you so against their own words? Non-encyclopedic to include a quote from the article's subject? Ridiculous. I will boldly re-insert, and you'll boldly revert, and there we are. And who is COllin? A Sniper (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That they lied is indeed my opinion. That they were telling the truth is no one's opinion but yours—a true consensus of one. Repeating the words of Joseph and Emma only muddies the article. Perhaps that's your intent.--John Foxe (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sniper, the more I have thought about this the more I think that maintaining quotes in the article should be a rarely exercised choice. It is better that we summarize and reference; if quotes are thought to be of significant value, then place them in the notes/references. These two quotes, IMHO, do not serve such a significant purpose to have them in the article body. I support Foxe's recent edit to move your edits to the note section.

My position has nothing to do with lying or attempting to take a position on why they said what they said. If lying were such a significant thing, then poor old Saint Peter is in a world of hurt along with all of the other apostles. I have always found it interesting how some Christians swallow camels and choke on gnats. When we set up a standard of behavior that exceeds, often by a wide margin, that of the prophets of the Old Testament and/or those of the New Testament, we either demonstrate a total ignorance of scripture or our own bigotry. --^StormRider 21:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your support.

I hasten to add, however, that according to the New Testament, "all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." (Revelation 21.8) Some gnat.--John Foxe (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So is Peter damned or forgiven? Is there a context to scripture or is it absolute? If forgiven then let's be careful about scorning liars as something less than human. That standard which we use to judge others will be the same standard by which we will be judged. Go ahead, you judge first; I'll just enjoy watching. Cheers! --^StormRider 23:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was simply responding to your charge that "some Christians" demonstrated "a total ignorance of scripture." The same basic verse is repeated in D&C 63:17; and 2 Nephi 9: 34, says, "Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell."--John Foxe (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll let you two sort out the theological implications of lying. I again state that the only reason I wanted to preserve in the article those two quotes was to balance out what is written about them by others. Foxe, I have NEVER stated whether or not I believe these two people were telling the truth, so please don't speak for me; you, on the other hand, claim to speak for truth itself, which is a dangerous blunder (though perhaps a skill all BJU grads possess). You'll be happy to read, however, that due to Storm Rider's intervention, I will cease trying to stick the quotes into the article, but I will make sure that the paragraphs are each cut into two as I've been trying to do. Oh, and I corrected COllin several times, Foxe, and you continued to revert it back to the typo. ;) Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your correcting my typos even after I reverted then. I certainly make my own share of blunders.--John Foxe (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Emma and plural marriage

The views expressed in the article are a consensus of both Mormon and non-Mormon experts. To argue that Emma was unaware of Joseph's polygamy would require citing some authority beyond Joseph and Emma—who had their own fish to fry.--John Foxe (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Who cares - you're arguing with yourself, again. What I did was not based on agenda or a point of view but was merely to stick a Brodie reference into the footnote. You cannot include everything in the article, John. The previous paragraphs already make the consensus clear. A Sniper (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The argument that you're not making an argument is not a legitimate argument. If I write

Richard Nixon once said, "I am not a crook." But by 1974, it was proven that he was.

If I have reputable sources for that statement, you can't excise the second sentence by taking the tack that you have no agenda and are making no argument. You must counter the sources. Does anyone claim that Nixon wasn't a crook? If yes, then the sentence will have to be modified: "All Nixon biographers since Watergate have agreed that Nixon was dishonest except for former speech writer, Misty Fogbank, who said that he was "as pure as the driven snow."

By using the Brodie quotation, I am countering what I believe to be a lie of Emma Smith that you have elevated into prominence by turning it into a separate paragraph. You need to find a WP:RS that agrees with your point of view. Otherwise what you are doing is original research. And it is not legitimate for you to say that you are making no argument, that you are simply allowing Emma to speak for herself.--John Foxe (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What you're doing is your own POV once again - this is a nice Brodie bit of speculation that supports your own creative writing, so stick it in the footnote. First, you use the LDS S132 as authoritative, when there is no other source, and next you throw in the Brodie line - whatever creates your own POV and spins the story. I guess we both have loads of free time to go back & forth & back & forth until we get things right - section by section, day by day - until it is truly NPOV. A Sniper (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In any event, I have added a reference from Newell & Avery that quotes a contemporary source stating that ES' position was a paradox. This is much better than Brodie making a speculative statement as to what ES was thinking...or you revealing your POV that she was a liar. A Sniper (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the "paradox" statement, but a friend of Emma's is hardly a WP:RS. And by using such a ambiguous quotation, you've basically admitted that no historian asserts that Emma was ignorant about Joseph's polygamy. At least Brodie is (for Wikipedia purposes) a "reliable source."--John Foxe (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Begging your pardon but it is is Newell and Avery who are the reliable sources, John, not the person they quote. Brodie's quote belongs in the footnotes as that sentence is not a statement of researched fact but Brodie's own speculation. As for your continued insertion of S132, I will now have to trumpet out the references that the section itself was never seen in its entirety by anyone who wrote it down, therefore your bringing it out as a reliable source is poppycock (other than to LDS who have always maintained its authenticity in the current, published form). The reality is that the words you've quoted were note made public until 1852, and not published until the 1870s. So please go back and re-write it as a quote from Brodie (or whomever) because it is simply not reliable the way it is currently written: as if Smith sat down and wrote what you currently find in an LDS D&C in 1842, which cannot be corroborated. A Sniper (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I concede on D&C 132, and I've reworded the paragraph.--John Foxe (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've also given up on the Brodie quote. Nice, but not worth fighting about.--John Foxe (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Both quotes are best in the footnotes. If readers want to qualify ES as a liar, liberated, deluded, or truthful, they are more than able to reach whatever conclusion the narrative dictates. A Sniper (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--John Foxe (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: Jr. or Jun.?

Hi. Sorry, this problem has probably already been addressed, but should his bolded name be Joseph Smith, Jun.? That's how Junior was abbreviated in the 19th century. Once again, sorry if this has already been asked. Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest sticking with Jr., as all contemporary works on Smith, not to mention the overwhelming number of Google articles, use the modern style. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"To do" list

Hey guys.

A while ago (nearly two years ago at this point) I put in the "To-Do" box you see at the top of the page. My hope was that it would bring consensus and unity to a talk page on an article fraught with trolling and bad-faith edit wars (which were then far worse than anything we're seeing now - so don't get discouraged, just work together).

What has happened with that "To-do" box since I put it there? Pretty much nothing. Most people have ignored it (myself included); the people who have paid attention haven't followed it, only stuck in what they'd like to happen. Even the organization of the layout box is different now than the article: as the article has changed and evolved, the to do list has remained stagnant.

Basically, it's just visual clutter. So, I'm sticking it in Archive 12. Hope no one minds. --Trevdna (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Introduction needs work

In reading the intro I noticed that it does not summarize the article, but rather was a statement unto itself. The statement of Smith running for president is not something for which he was known. It is a fact of history, but it did not play a major role in his life or his legacy. Also, his place in history is not to be judged solely by his critics or his followers, but his impact on society at large during his day and his impact up until today. Further, the intro needs to summarize the article.

Controversial topics that attract as much editing as this one often suffer from disjointed editing. Every so often it needs to be read from beginning to end, deleting the redundancies, bringing back more concise language, making sure terminology is uniform and understandable by the average reader, and reaffirm a balanced, NPOV approach to the topic. I think it is time for this one. This is not a call to rewrite the article and I do not support such a move, but it is time for good word-smiths to refocus on the article. --^StormRider 19:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been virtually no true editing of this article since I rewrote it. None. It's now virtually stable except for the ridiculously frequent vandalism. The reason for the article's stability is its current NPOV character, firmly based in the sources. That said, I'm always open to shortening things where meaning remains unchanged.--John Foxe (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we are of like mind, but I really do not appreciate the introduction. It is disjointed from the article and we can do a better job of writting a summary. The temple issue is an important one; they are fundamental to Smith's expansion of his teachings about God, salvation, and family. Without the temple, there really was no Latter Day Saint movement in many ways. When LDS speak of the restored gospel, it is first stated as revelation and preisthood authority. Both of these charateristics are fulfilled in the temple. As I stated above, a rewrite of the article is not needed. The introduction could easily be classified as a rewrite, but not the article body. The body needs more wordsmithing and concise wording. I hope we are saying the same thing. --^StormRider 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Are all BJU grads as arrogant?  ;) Remember, dear John - you did not write the article alone, and what your drove was constantly channelled by your peers. I agree with you both that the article does not need a re-write, but the introduction certainly had a negative spin to it, which is unnecessary and unlike the lede to other articles of religious pioneers. SR got it right with his edit, and your revert was unjustified. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you go back and check, you'll find that the current lede was mostly written by Cogden. When I rewrote the body, I left the lede basically as it was when I arrived. That may be one reason why the lede doesn't reflect the article as well as it might.--John Foxe (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer my edits and I think that was only a good beginning to what is needed. John is correct, that bit of spin was from COGden; however, being COgden's edit does not make it proper or right. Sniper, you do add a degree of humor, but let's pull back a little on Foxe. He is a good word-smith and will be helpful in tightening up the language. --^StormRider 22:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Foxe, weren't the Kirkland and Independence centers happening on parallel path, i.e. Smith himself moved north, but there was already an acknowledged center there?--^StormRider 22:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. I think the current wording does suggest that there was already a settlement in Missouri when Smith moved there.--John Foxe (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope that John gathers from our back & forth edits that I respect him and strive only to check & balance. I find his self-importance refreshing, and the Bob Jones angle only makes things interesting. And I too prefer your edit, SR. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, A Sniper, I don't think it's much self-importance. He's right that more vandalism than editing happens to this article. I also think that Storm Rider is right that the previous lead isn't really a WP:LEAD. Cool Hand Luke 04:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

But then again, Foxe is Foxe... As much as I admire John's writing, underneath it all may be the desire of an evangelical Christian to point out the weaknesses of JSJr. due to being a false prophet. Am I wrong John? In the past I have admitted my own personal standpoint, as have other editors. We might all collectively desire an NPOV article, and together we can achieve it, but John's most recent edit to the lede (reverting SR) again tries to stress the negative. Tsk tsk. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to explain how such an edit does anything but reflect Storm's interest in "deleting the redundancies [and] bringing back more concise language." All things Missouri are mentioned at length in the body; bringing them in here will produce only strife. I'm truly interested in making the article NPOV, and the fact that there have been virtually no true edits since I completed rewriting the body of the article is pretty good proof of that statement.--John Foxe (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Article out of balance?

Based on the wiki policy of silence implies consent, I felt a need to not be silent. The editors on both sides need to suck it up, and admit that they have inserted sentences to promote a particular impression of Joseph Smith. As a controversial historical figure, there are bound to be opinions about Joseph Smith which masquerade as facts (meaning statements which are verifiable through citation, but at their core lack neutrality, and the inclusion of said citations and quotations only lends authority to what are in reality biased statements). I suppose such situations are inevitable in the wiki--anyone can edit--format, and I am not sure true neutrality is even possible with Joseph Smith; there is just not much middle ground between Prophet and Imposter. So if neutrality on the crucial facts is not possible in this forum, then the real question is one of balance. Are there enough facts from both sides to prevent a reader from coming away with an overly negative or positive opinion of Joseph Smith?

I formally submit that this article as of Jan. 12, 2009 is out of balance, casting a generally negative tone on Joseph Smith and his history. It has drifted from biographical to critical. Note I am not deriding the inclusion of criticism of Joseph Smith, rather I am lamenting the lack of positive counter-balancing statements. Though there are numerous examples, I choose only this one: the text under "Golden Plates" and "Book of Mormon" makes no mention of what believers claim can be learned from the Book of Mormon about Jesus Christ. Instead, the summary articles are really about "craz"ed treasure hunting with seer stones, and the misadventures of translation. These sections are not necessarily factually untrue, but as written they are completely unbalanced. Such is the case for almost the entirety of the article.

Before I begin making changes to make the overall article more positive, I hoped we could reach a consensus that there is a need for more positive information. If we cannot reach such a consensus, then I will explore other options, but following Wiki's principles of dispute resolution, I thought it appropriate to begin here. --Adlib24 (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I welcome your interest in the article. Smith is more than a polarizing topic in Christianity and for the last many months there have been a plethora of editors who have devoted their time to the article. Unfortunately, the majority of them have an interest in the negative information about Smith and his legacy; stuff that is the play ground of the anti-Mormon throng. The issue as you have pointed out is one of balance. Another is the concept of fringe; much of what is said treats fringe concepts, documentation, and statements as if it was mainstream, historical fact. Quinn is one that comes to mind with some of the more bizarre positions, but he is quoted as if he was the very center of Mormon research. You will be faced with a rather tiresome venture here and you will find support, but you will find a great wall of opposition. "Christians" would strongly prefer that this man and his church(s) only be viewed through the worst of lenses and without any positive or realistic portrayal of his legacy. Cheers and good luck. --^StormRider 01:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! I don't really expect Smith's opponents to be any kinder now, than they were during his life (and death), so I suppose it would be okay if some 'fringe' material remained, as long as editors agreed to allow some positive statements as well. Besides, balance seems like a somewhat more objective goal. If editors are reluctant to remove fringe material, then I hope they would at least agree to balance. Agreeing to neither hardly seems very fair...or very Christian for that matter.--Adlib24 (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The article has remarkable balance right now. Any attempts to deliberately add Mormon POV will both spark an edit war and in the end degrade the literary quality of the current article because of the difficulty of clearing the corpses from the battlefield when it concludes. Improvements in this article are more likely to come from deletions than additions.--John Foxe (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Balance is desirable in any article, despite who or what it is about. For every viewpoint, there should be a balancing counter-viewpoint, if one exists, and vice-versa. If the article has an over-arching negative tone, it should be balanced out. But, yes, it will be an uphill battle, because Smith remains a very controversial figure. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Smith is handled with kid gloves in this article. There needs to be more emphasis on the fraudulent means that he used to start his religion and also the emphasis on sex at the end of his life.--Hi540 (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Foxe, I agree the article is too long and that the literary style is generally good, but don't you see that whenever negative statements are mentioned, there is no counter-balancing statement for how Smith (or adherents) responded to such charges. I see (thanks Hi540 for the reality check) that our views on the article's balance are a reflection of our individual bias, so I guess I will do well to be specific. Let's start here: in the First Vision, there is a quotation about a minister who (as Smith tells it) thought the experience was "of the devil" because revelation does not exist, but there is no balancing statement of what Smith makes of that. In fact, Smith goes on to say (a few sentences later in the same source), (JSH 1:24) "However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision." Now, those statements are in strong contrast. Adherents embrace the later, critics embrace the former. The latter is clearly Mormon POV, but the former is--at least in isolation--clearly anti-revelation and therefore anti-Smith. Can we agree to either remove the dangling sentence about what the minister thought or add something to balance it out? My preference, because of the centrality of the issue, would be to keep the quote as is, but to add one balancing sentence, even something pretty toned down (by LDS standards) like the following: "Although Smith's accounts vary in content (see First Vision)), Smith continued to affirm that he beheld a vision." I am sure you fine wordsmiths can help me improve it, but do you get the gist? Do you see why the original quotation in isolation is out of balance? If no, we may be at an impasse. Being afraid of corpses, I won't make any changes until we get consensus. ;)--Adlib24 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You've noted a good example of where a sentence could be cut. The story about the minister claiming the vision was from the devil is from Smith himself not from the minister. I don't believe a word of it. In my opinion, Joseph made the story up years later. The best course to follow then is not to add to the statement but to eliminate it entirely.--John Foxe (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not what anyone believes, but what is important to the legacy of Joseph Smith. This is viewed as a seminal part of Smith's experience as a boy. However, I do support John's desire to make the article as concise and focused as possible. --^StormRider 19:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If anything, the article is quite sympathetic to Smith, giving the stories told by his supporters in the main text, and relegating the views of his opposition, and historians, to footnotes, or excising them entirely. What is needed is not an additional 'rebuttal" by Smith supporters of each point raised that they think is unfavorable to Smith, but rather clear-cut statements of all views, either positive or negative, rather than a "debate". - Juden (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But that's the whole point: no one knows what the "facts" are. Clear and verifiable sources for what happened way back in the 1800s are hard to come by. All we really have to rely on are eyewitness accounts, and they are about as biased as you can get. On the one side, we have Smith and his followers. On the other, we have those who didn't trust them or outright hated them: there was no middle ground, and therefore, no NPOV sources. Stating facts such as "they moved from Kirtland, Ohio to Missouri in 1831" would give short shrift to an important and polarizing figure in American history. So all we really can do is give a he said/she said account, but we just have to make sure it is balanced, giving each side equal coverage to the events and the person. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't require NPOV sources: if it did, there'd be nothing in Wikipedia. NPOV comes from representing all significant points of view. And NPOV also doesn't mean "balanced" in the sense of "represent both sides equally", and especially doesn't mean misrepresenting fringe views as though they had equal merit to mainstream views, but rather that viewpoints are represented in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. - Juden (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Foxe for making the change. I am now more aware of the dispute about the story, so I guess you were right to remove it, especially with the extended treatment it gets in the main article on the First Vision. I don't want to just retread battles that have already been fought on other pages. I, however, agree with StormRider that it is important, and am glad we at least mention it in the footnotes.--Adlib24 (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)