Talk:First Vision

No Vision?

I find it odd that in an article of this length, the actual text of the official published account is missing. Why not let the text speak for itself? At the least, you should include an link to it. ---cks5929

Appropriate attribution

Thank you for acknowledging the need to attribute the disputed facts about the revivals. 74s181 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 'non-Mormon' vs 'Reverend'. On a scale of -10 to +10:

+10 "Church President and Prophet"

+9 "apologist"

+8 "associate professor of history and religion at Brigham Young University"

+7 "LDS Sunday School superintendent"

+6 "manager of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir"

+5 "Mormon" (not actually used in the article, present for comparison)

+1 "Jan Shipps" (I could argue for zero or -1 since she knows more about LDS history than many LDS but still isn't a member. But I won't.)

0 Someone who doesn't know and doesn't care anything about the FV.

-9 "critic"

-10 "anti-Mormon"

Now the question is, where would "non-Mormon" and "Reverend" fit on this scale, and which is a more accurate expert qualifier of Wesley P. Walters? I would argue that "non-Mormon" is closer to zero or more neutral than "Mormon", simply because many more "Mormons" have a belief or opinion about the FV compared to "non-Mormons". So, let's say that "non-Mormon" is about a -3. 'Reverend' would be somewhere between "LDS Sunday School superintendent" and "Church President and Prophet", but negative, right? 74s181 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So, John Foxe, do you really think that "non-Mormon" is a fair expert qualifier for Reverend Walters, given all the various extended expert qualifiers you've insisted on for Mormons? 74s181 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it's fair. Marquardt and Walters should need no attribution at all until their historical research is proved unsound. Calling them "non-Mormons" was simply a concession on my part, made in the spirit of compromise and good will. Some Mormons apologists argue for a contrary position, but even LDS scholars like the mature Richard Bushman carefully step around the problem. To my knowledge, never has any non-Mormon (unless you want to count Quinn) published a scholarly piece that attempts to defend Mormon belief in an 1818-20 revival in the Palmyra area. This notion is strictly Mormon apologetics.

And while you're thinking about what to call Walters, you might also consider the problem of describing his co-author Marquardt, who's "author of The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary (Signature Books, 1999) and co-author of Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record (Smith Research Associates, 1994). Among his several historical monographs are The Book of Abraham Revisited, The Strange Marriages of Sarah Ann Whitney, and Joseph Smith's Diaries. His essays have appeared in the Journal of Pastoral Practice, Restoration, Sunstone, Journal of Latter Day Saint History, John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, and Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought."--John Foxe (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, John Foxe, I'm all for simplifying attribution, but it'll be a big job. Do you still think it is a historical fact that "none of the first song writers wrote intimately of the first vision"? If so, does that mean I can remove "an LDS Sunday School superintendent and manager of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir"? 74s181 (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you still think it is a historical fact that "there is no evidence beyond Smith's word that he ever mentioned his vision to a minister"? If so, I guess I can remove "emeritus Brigham Young University history professor", right? 74s181 (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And, do you still think it is a historical fact that "the First Vision did not figure prominently in any evangelistic endeavors by the Church until the 1880s"? If so, does that mean I can remove "historian" from "Mormon historian James B. Allen"? And can I change "sympathetic but non-Mormon historian Jan Shipps" to "non-Mormon Jan Shipps"? 74s181 (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those swords that cuts both ways, John Foxe. Maybe you want to rethink this? 74s181 (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The attributions that you mention are "man-bites-dog" stories. It's a yawn if we're told that notions of an Ed Decker tend to undercut the claims of Mormonism. If, however, the opinions of a Mormon scholar do the same thing, that's worth mentioning.

Although we'd need attribution for a quotation by someone like professional anti-Mormon Ed Decker, there's no need to attribute non-Mormon scholarship unless its criticism of Mormonism is arguably shoddy. I don't think the evidence presented by Marquardt and Walters is. To deal with Marquardt and Walters, Mormons have to change the time (it's really the aftermath of the 1816-17 revivals), the place (somewhere else in New York) or the frame of reference (Methodist camp meetings metamorphosed into interdenominational awakenings).

Now, if a non-Mormon writer, say Richard Ostling, should back Mormon claims, then you can glory in his identification as a non-Mormon. That's a "man-bites-dog" story.--John Foxe (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I checked [WP:NPOV]], I didn't find a 'man-bites-dog' rule, or any reference to the general principle you described, but I did find the following:

From WP:NPOV A simple formulation: (emphasis in original)

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

(emphasis added)

A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. For example, when discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

From WP:NPOV Let the facts speak for themselves: (emphasis added)

Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.

John Foxe, just as it is important to you to attribute what you consider to be man-bites-dog statements to LDS experts, it is also important to me that axe-wielders such as Ed Decker, Rev. Walters, etc. are properly identified as people who probably have an axe to grind. 74s181 (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Walters' article was published by Dialogue. His thesis is a scholarly one (which even Richard Bushman in his reply paid tribute to), it and has never been proved incorrect. To deal with Marquardt and Walters, Mormons have to change the time (it's really the aftermath of the 1816-17 revivals), the place (somewhere else in New York) or the frame of reference (Methodist camp meetings metamorphosed into interdenominational awakenings). In Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman passed on attempting to support Mormon apologetics about the date of the religious awakening.--John Foxe (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing about proof and ignoring WP:NPOV policy. 74s181 (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are the current attributions. 74s181 (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

1. According to non-Mormons H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters...
2. Some apologists for the Mormon position treat Joseph words "whole district of country"...
3. ...evidence for the date of this move has been interpreted by believers...1820 ...
4. ...and by non-believers, 1824.
5. ... some Mormon apologists argue that in 1818...
6. For a counter argument...see Dan Vogel...Vogel argues...
7. Two LDS scholars... argue that the most likely exact date...
8. Mormon historian James B. Allen notes that...
9. Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay argues...
10. Mormon historian James B. Allen also argues...
11. Kurt Widner, a non-Mormon theologian, states...
12. the sympathetic but non-Mormon historian Jan Shipps has written...
13. George D. Pyper, an LDS Sunday School superintendent and manager of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir...
14. Gordon B. Hinckley, Church President and Prophet, has declared,
15. William B. Smith, a younger brother of Joseph Smith, Jr., and a key figure in the early Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints...
16. Milton V. Backman, Jr., associate professor of history and religion at Brigham Young University said...
17. But according to emeritus Brigham Young University history professor James B. Allen...
18. FARMS, an informal group of Brigham Young University scholars does not dispute...
19. Grant Palmer has noted...
20. Apostle Neal A. Maxwell wrote...
21. Richard L. Anderson, a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University wrote...
22. Marlin K. Jensen, General authority and Church Historian said...
23. Richard Mouw, an evangelical theologian and student of Mormonism summarized...

74s181 (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Areas of concern

Here is my list of things that I think ought to be reviewed:

INTRODUCTION

• Claims that this is called "Grove experience" – who says that is what it is called? Need cite
• Is there some sort of wiki link we can make relating to gods of flesh and bone?

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

• It is true that at least early, Smith had limited education, but this seems irrelevant to the article.

SMITH FAMILY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

• To my eye the order of the elements in the religious background should follow some sort of logic. I think the most logical is: Influence of revivals, history of visions and folk magic. But I could see those three reversed.

• The folk magic stuff is fun and interesting but it seems like undue weight. Joseph Smith hardly gave it any credit at all and seems to have laughed at it. We may be overdoing it. I have known some water dousers and yet this hardly defined their lives or their actual religious beliefs so I just feel like between my personal experience and Smith’s humorous sense about this subject that this matter is overblown here. However, Jan Shipps comment is not lightweight and should be included. I think this section could go:

The family also practiced a form of folk magic, which, although not uncommon in this time and place, was criticized by many contemporary Protestants "as either fraudulent illusion or the workings of the Devil." Jan Shipps notes that while Joseph Smith's "religious claims were rejected by many of the persons who had known him in the 1820s because they remembered him as a practitioner of the magic arts," others of his earliest followers were attracted to his claims "for precisely the same reason."

I’d be tempted to put in some comments by Joseph Smith about this magic stuff – and he would be a primary source of how it affected him, but undue weight is the major consideration I have.

WHAT SMITH SAID HE SAW

• Throughout this section, there are references to the different sources. I think that this should be used sparingly or not at all. Where there is no overt contradiction, I would utterly eliminate comments that the statement comes from a particular source. Where there are contradictions I would still revisit what source was used. Chiefly because I do not think that the different sources being listed are interesting to the reader and it breaks the narrative.

• In the first paragraph I see the Statement: According to later accounts, he prayed, "O Lord, what church shall I join?" This looks like it should be later in the narrative.

• Statement: "Most latter-day saints believe this was god and Jesus..". Not really what Smith said he saw. Remove it.

HOW THE VISION HAS BEEN PRESENTED

• Change section to HOW THE VISION WAS RECORDED
• Evolution of the First Vision importance is treated twice. It should be just once and it makes more sense to have it in the "How people have responded to the First Vision" Section. Move it, simplify it and integrate it.
• I have some problems with the Jeff Lindsey allusion. Not strong… but it seems like this is a single source perspective and if Lindsey edited here, it would be OR. I am open to an alternative view.
• However Cowdery, should probably read “Moreover Cowdery” because it looks like a compounded error.
• Warren Parish Scribe identification is unneeded cruft.
• I see some capitalization of pronouns for Jesus. Is that per wikipedia standards?
• In the 1838 account it says "18 years previous" This is not in the account, it just gives a year. Lets stick with what it says.
• Accounts for publication should be divided into two sections: 1840 Account and 1842 Account
• William Smith's reminisces should be deleted. Ads no value, is not a significant source, contradicts multiple other timelines and he admitted he did not recall it so well.

HOW PEOPLE HAVE RESPONDED TO THE FIRST VISION

• Criticism should be more forthright and frank: State that the critics believe Smith lied. Reformat the section to match this approach. The section should not be a forum for the critics but should explain their views.

There may be more but thats all for now. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There's not much that you've mentioned that I disagree with; most of these changes I support wholeheartedly. (In fact I just did a few simple things myself.) When an article has become a battlefield, it tends to get littered with corpses.

I would urge caution, however, about saying that "critics believe Smith lied." That's not necessarily so even if what he said was not objectively true. Personally I believe Joseph Smith was a mendacious liar; but it can be argued (and has been argued) that Smith was crazy, self-deceived, or simply grew to believe in visions that were the product of his imagination.

Also, in my opinion, the folk magic section is important. Quinn's book is a real eye-opener on the extent to which Smith and other early Mormons emphasized magical practices. Curiously, the beginning of the end of "magical world view" in the LDS Church occurs in the 1880s at the same time that the First Vision begins to be emphasized.--John Foxe 21:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But I think that with regard to this topic: The First Vision, the arguments all appear to not be related to him being crazy. I suppose self-deceived fits into some of the arguments. I have a hard time understanding the perspective of him growing to believe in something that did not happen as though it were true. That sounds just odd.

I'm not opposed to the magical thinking stuff especially since Jan Shipps made some connection between that and his reception by others. But I do not think it needs to take up so much space and it does not need so many other opinions. Shipps opinion is really the only relevant one to this topic. And, honestly, I kind of look sideways at documents that are not final but are drafts like his mothers apparent journal entry. If it was not final then she had more work to do on it... maybe something was wrong with it in her eyes. So to me its not a very good source. Something about it was not quite right to her and she changed it. That means something. I know that I sometimes go back and read something I have read and thought "That came out all wrong" and changed it later. I would not want to be quoted the original way. Thats my thinking. --Blue Tie 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

About LMS's draft: It wasn't a working draft; she didn't change the comment; her opinion about the matter wasn't considered. The mention of family magical practice was cut by her editors before publication almost certainly because it was embarrassing to contemporary Mormons. Lucy Smith thought she was defending her family's reputation. Her editors knew otherwise. The comment is actually more significant because it appears in the draft version.

As for Smith growing to believe in something he had put together himself, it is a strange idea; but it's also something that someone as significant as Fawn Brodie seems to have believed in.--John Foxe 21:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not know about the draft, I just read the reference and said, "that's sketchy". How do you know editors cut it and that she did not?

Fawn Brodie wasn't ever really sure about Smith. I do not think it is fair to say that she held only one idea about him, other than that he was not good. But she swayed between lying and mentally ill. Perhaps a self reflection.--Blue Tie 22:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no proof that LMS didn't cut the reference herself, but in EMD, Vogel says it's an editorial deletion. There's also no record of her having any say in the final product.

I agree that Brodie is confused about Smith's motivation. And she got more confused as she got deeper into psychohistory.--John Foxe 00:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well and editorial deletion could be by her. I just have problems when there is a draft and a final -- going with the draft. --Blue Tie 00:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If the manuscript draft is verifiable then it doesn't matter that it is a draft. WP:V says: (emphasis in original)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

The LMS MS draft is available in EMD. I think I have also seen it online. It is properly identified as a draft in the article. 74s181 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

However, the unpublished draft and the published versions of the book are both primary sources. WP:NOR - Primary, seoondary and tertiary sources says: (emphasis added)

A primary source is a document or person very close to the situation being written about. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires another reliable source for that interpretation. To the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source, unless such claims are verifiable from another source.

There are WP:RS secondary sources who provide the interpretation that is presented in the article. I wonder if presenting the quote itself is appropriate, as it is somewhat ambiguous and seems like an attempt to draw a conclusion or lead the reader to a conclusion rather than stating the conclusion of an expert. 74s181 (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been too busy to deal with this, but the issue here is the same as the one related to Walters. John Foxe is using sources that have been superseded by more recent information. In the case of Wesley Walters, the recent sources are superior for a variety of reasons but he rejects them for the inferior sources. In this case, I again say that the later version by the writer -- the one intended for publication -- is the more authoritative source. (I understand the issues of "truth" but I am talking about reasonable standards of reliablity). In both cases, Foxe goes to an older, less authoritative or less reliable source and his reasons are (for all appearances) based upon his admitted bias against Joseph Smith. This goes directly to the heart of what wikipedia should not be: a platform for some sort of personal agenda. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Marquardt and Walters have not been superseded; their thesis has not been proved incorrect. The newer sources to which you refer are simply Mormon apologetics intended to push a religious agenda. Richard Bushman did not rely on them (or even mention his own earlier apologetic article about the subject). Wikipedia should not promote any ideological or religious viewpoint—especially an unacknowledged one such as yours.--John Foxe (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Superseded or not, proven incorrect or not, Walters must be attributed. There are many non-Mormons in the world, Walter's primary expert qualification is that he is a Presbyterian minister. 74s181 (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Revivals irrelevant

Whether there were "revivals" or not, is irrelevant. Joseph Smith said that there was "an unusual excitement upon the subject of religion". Walters comments about "revivals" are not relevant. I note that this is one of the weaknesses of his study that have been pointed out by his critics and I do not think he ever addressed this issue. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

FAIR [1] disagrees with your assessment and stubbornly holds to an 1820 date, Methodist camp meetings as interdenominational revivals, no date conflation, and local newspapers not reporting local news. The FAIR page never suggests that the time and place of the interdenominational religious awakening is irrelevant.

If, as she says, Joseph Smith's mother joined the Presbyterian church in her search for comfort after the death of Alvin in 1823, then Joseph Smith is wrong about the date of the First Vision in his fifteen year, when he says there was a general awakening "among all the sects in that region of the country…the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties." Where is this great religious awakening in that "whole district of the country" in 1820? The question's not irrelevant, and Mormon apologists such as yourself are all too aware of that fact.--John Foxe (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that site constitutes a reliable source. It looks like another wiki.

And W.Walters was superseded. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"Where is this great religious awakening in... 1820?" In the 1838 / JSH / PoGP account, JS,Jr. didn't say that the revivals occurred in 1820, or 1819, or any particular year. 74s181 (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, you're sure that JS,Jr. was mistaken about something. Perhaps what he was mistaken about was when his mother joined the Presbyterian church. 74s181 (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think he said that the excitement about religion started about two years after their "Removal to Manchester". That would put an "earliest" date on things. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Blue Tie, what he said was "Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester", this is more than one year and less than two years after. Overall, JS,Jr. is very non-specific about the date of the revivals. 74s181 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"...born 1805...moved to Palmyra in tenth year, or thereabouts...in about four years...moved...into Manchester...Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester...unusual excitement on the subject of religion...commenced with the Methodists but soon became general...when the converts began to file off...scene of great confusion and bad feeling...priest against priest, and convert against convert...all their good feelings...were entirely lost...I was at this time in my fifteenth year..."

I challenge anyone to justify any specific year for the beginning of the revivals, using only JS,Jr's statements in the 1838 / JSH / PoGP account. If one could date the 'removal to Manchester' with certainty then one might identify the start of the revivals to within plus or minus one year. But when is the 'removal to Manchester'? We certainly can't date it from JS,Jr's statements in the 1838 / JSH / PoGP account. Based on other evidence, is it when JS,Sr. closed the deal on the Manchester property, or when they began clearing it, or when a member of the Smith family first slept overnight on the property, or when they began constructing the cabin, or when they completed the first phase of the cabin, or when the last family member closed the door on the place they had been living previously for the last time? 74s181 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that historians have tried to put a date on the 'removal to Manchester' because that is what historians do. Some historians may have tried to be objective, others did it axe in hand, predetermined that it couldn't fit / had to fit JS,Jr's timeline for the revivals. But I'm equally sure that JS,Jr. had no idea what dates the historians would choose when he said "Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester...", so whatever date the historians picked is irrelevant, regardless of their agenda or lack thereof. 74s181 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely some reliable source has written about this. Surely I'm not the first person to notice this. 74s181 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

First, the idea of "our removal" to "Manchester", is very clearly a movement of the family. It would be the time that they left one residence for another residence. And by the way it is said, I think a fair argument could be made that this removal was not over the space of a few feet and did not involve just one person but rather the family unit. Perhaps we do not know the exact date of this, but we probably know the year. But in many ways this does not matter. You make mention of revivals but Joseph Smith does not. Joseph Smith mentions "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion". Frankly, I doubt that a boy of 12 to 14 has sufficient knowledge and experience to know what is unusual in that matter. To me, this simply smacks of his becoming aware of the general brewing of religious fervor that had been and would continue to be a part of the American religious history and experience. So too literal an interpretation of his words results in the equivalent of counting angels on pin heads. I do not know why you or J.F. are arguing that revivals ever took place in Palmyra or New York. If they were daily events or if they had never happened, it would not matter because Joseph Smith is silent about them. Instead, if someone wants to "disprove" this history they must take the impossible road of proving that there was nothing around that would constitute an "unusual" excitement on the subject of religion in the mind of a young and inexperienced country boy. To me there is no possibility to prove or disprove such a thing. But the general timing of the event may be understood by framing it -- such as in the second year after our removal to Manchester. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with turning "unusual excitement" into "usual excitement," but the folks in Temple Square will not be amused. Joseph Smith was not a boy when he first wrote down this story, and in the meantime, he had lived through the 1824-25 awakening when "great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties." In the canonical version of the story Smith says he was in his fifteenth year when his family "was proselyted to the Presbyterian church" although Lucy Mack Smith says that they joined after the death of Alvin in 1823; both cannot be correct, and it beggars belief that Lucy would forget the connection between the death of her son and her joining the church. That's just for starters. I suggest you try out your "it-doesn't-make-a-difference" thesis on someone from FARMS; they'll enlighten you as to the difficulties this position creates for Mormon apologetics.--John Foxe (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right that both cannot be correct, but I am not clear on why we care whether the people at this obscure and pov wiki site think this is a problem or not. If Mormon apologists consider it a problem, it is their problem. Not ours. Our problem is what to write about -- what to include, what to exclude. Appropriate weight is important to this matter. And so here is my thinking on that.

I do not have a problem with bad memories -- well not with their existence anyway. Over life, my memory has generally been fantastic and I have often been confused or annoyed at how others could simply not remember things properly. I have even seen people's minds just invent things that never happened and they believed them because they "remembered" them -- to my exasperation. However, in more recent years, I am finding that though I may not remember things incorrectly so that I unknowingly fabricate past events, I do not always remember them correctly either and so, in my dotage, I have become more sympathetic to people who do not remember things so well.

In this case, we are arguing one person's memory against another person's memory about a sub-detail on a bit of the article that is only relevant the dating of the First Vision. That two people have different dating memories is a big "so what?" in the context of the larger article even if it is interesting in the process of seeking a date of the first vision. So, how to handle it?

It appears to me that you are seeking to discredit the whole account (you have said you think J. Smith was a liar), but when we really look at it, all you are really discrediting is the power of people to remember things correctly -- and we may not even know whose memory is correct. Indeed, you are choosing superseded sources and the memories of older people over more recent research and memories of younger people. In my experience that is not always the best way to do things.

On the other hand, if the evidence about the date is not 100% correlated -- who can be surprised? Is history ever attested to cleanly? Not in my experience. That is part of the fun of it. I do not mind presenting different evidences for the date but I think we should be using the preponderance of the best evidences and certainly not use superseded references and we should avoid giving undue weight to trivia and memory malfunctions in the discussion. Particularly if we have an agenda to set a pov tone and to meet a pov perspective -- something you have openly proclaimed.

If the objective is to help determine the date of the first vision, best evidences should be used and if contradictory evidences can be satisfactorily explained in the context of what the predominance of the evidences shows, they should be discounted. Surely if you have experience in historical research this is not a novel idea to you.

Here we are talking about something that, though it has taken on larger importance, is apparently a private and personal matter and was part of the experiences of one person and one person only. THAT person's memories should have predominance. And the association of the person to the thing remembered should also matter. Joseph Smith's memories about things that happened directly to him should be given the greatest weight and his memories of things that happened to others or around him should be given less weight. His memory of the removal to Manchester is almost certainly key as a limiting factor because this was an event that affected him personally and directly. His memory on this is likely to be more correct. His age at the time is also likely to be pretty good though less reliable. What he remembered happening to others (joining other Churches for example) is likely to be even more unreliable and if it contradicts primary memories that would not greatly trouble me -- even if it troubles the folk the Mormon Apologetics wiki (or you).

Associated with all of this are the concepts of "accuracy" and "precision". I use the terms mathematically and this means that they are not synonyms. Joseph Smith may say that the First Vision occurred in 1820. This may be "accurate" without being precise and we might judge the precision of a date that ends in zero to be +/- 5 years. However, when he says it happened in his 15th year, the precision is closer to +/- 1 year. If he gives other accounts giving his age and they all have precision errors that are +/-1 year then we would not be idiots to suppose that the overlapping error bands constitute the region of maximum likelihood. So if he gives one account saying he was 14, we might think the error band to be 13 to 15. If he also gives another age of 15, we might consider the band to be 14 to 16. The overlapping regions (14 to 15) would constitute the maximum likelihood area. When Joseph says it happened in the Spring of 1820, this applies precision to within at least 3 months to many people (I would say probably more like 4.5 months). If he says "early in the spring", I would tend to see the precision as being +/- 4 weeks (around April 5). But though narratively that precision is attached to a year, my experience is that precision and accuracy do not always travel well together in memories and I am willing to accept that it might be the first half of some other year. Combining all of the various dated memories in this case probably resolves to a general and reasonable conclusion. (I make no specific conclusion here because I am talking process). If other incidental events remembered are not compatible with that conclusion I have no problem chalking it up to memory errors -- perhaps because it was not as central to the conscious awareness and mental note taking of the person doing the recalling. Only if a variety of other disparate and objective evidences harmonize in agreement with a conclusion that is contradictory should we consider them to be especially relevant -- and at that point they have sufficient weight to represent a separate point of view. Otherwise they are at best, footnotes to the article, and may not even rise to that level of importance. One must review them carefully to see if they are not simply cruft detail being given undue weight.--Blue Tie (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to give Joseph any benefit of the doubt. He told the canonical story in 1838 during a period of turmoil in the church, and this undoubtedly benefited his position. Smith had a conflict of interest and because of this conflict, every other witness to these early events is putatively more trustworthy than he. When Joseph said that the vision occurred in the spring of 1820, the question we should be asking is not how many weeks plus or minus we can allow him but whether there is any credence in his story at all.

The move to Manchester is indeed an important benchmark and one aspect of Joseph's story I trust because in itself it has no ideological implications. If you look hard at the public documents reprinted in EMD, you'll realize how difficult it is for apologists to prevent that move from being dated post-1820. (Awhile ago weren't you saying that talk of the Manchester move was just cruft?)--John Foxe (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is also no reason not to give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt. I do not consider it a factor either way, though I generally like to edit from the perspective of sympathy with the subject. As for his REAL motivations in telling the story, anything said by anyone but him is speculation and anything said by him is subject to a charge of self-serving. But either way, it is irrelevant and I consider it out of bounds in this discussion or in consideration of what to include or exclude in the article. However, it is patently ridiculous to say that anyone and everyone is more trustworthy than he is -- but it comes directly from your pov and is evidence you should not be editing this page... your views are way too extreme. We should not be asking "How many weeks we can allow him" nor should be we be asking "is there any credence in his story at all". We should just report the facts. Failing that, we should at least use some sort of non pov standards of reviewing the evidence. But this appears to be way too hard for you.

I particularly like the move to Manchester as a benchmark because I believe that would be a "bright line memory" and would go a long way to establishing a sort of early and late limit (subject to precision issues). The problem is that the evidence as to when this move took place is apparently confusing to some people. Personally, I would consider their "Removal to Manchester" to be the time that the family moved from one general locale to the general vicinity (certainly within walking distance) of their ultimate Manchester home. This appears to me, based upon my experiences with early records, to be obvious. But people may not agree. Whether this is a support or a problem for apologists is irrelevant to my thinking on the matter and in fact, I have no idea what they claim on this issue. (I have not researched it) --Blue Tie (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometime get out the relevant volumes of EMD and take a look at the evidence, especially the public records, most of which were created with no belief that they would be of significance to anyone beyond their original purpose. (I've noticed that you, more often than most editors, claim not to have read or researched something about which you have an opinion. Do you have an opinion about why that might be?)

Yes, I have an opinion about why that might be. I think it is because you scrutinize my writing for biases.

Incidentally, I do not research as much as I would like because, frankly, I am always traveling. That makes it hard. As a further aside, I have not forgotten your request for the information about the Methodist Circuit Rider and his journal. I intend to dig it out when I am home at Christmas. I did not photo copy the whole journal, but just some pages, so I might end up just giving a few quotes and then describing the reference in detail. As I recall this rider was in South Carolina. I might be wrong though.

With due respect, "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18: 13.--John Foxe (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Bogus. Bogus to apply that little proverb to anything I have said. And unkind. Due respect for you has fallen a notch.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"He that is void of wisdom despiseth his neighbor: but a man of understanding holdeth his peace." Proverbs 11; 12.--John Foxe (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we could all use a little more John 13:34-35. Especially me. 74s181 (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"He that passeth by and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears." Proverbs 26: 17--John Foxe (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

While I also enjoy writing from a sympathetic perspective to my subject, it would be foolish to overlook possible conflicts of interest that may skew the evidence. In this case there are serious conflicts of interest.

You are going into Original Research when you start to divine out and imagine motivations on your own and you are probably violating Undue Weight provisions if you present opinions that press a speculation on the matter. These opinions and speculations are not "Facts". Sure it is a fact that they exist, but it is not a "fact" relevant to the article.

There's no original research if one cites authority, which is what I do and propose to do. The opinions of an expert are "facts" unless challenged or proved incorrect by other evidence.--John Foxe (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh.. but as I said then you get into undue weight and perhaps cruft. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That undue weight and cruft must be proved. And due weight in making such a judgment should rest as much with those who believe the First Vision to be fictional as those who believe it to be fact.--John Foxe (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV goes into considerable detail about undue weight, I think this label is applicable to some of the problem parts of the article, and since it is defined in an objective way it could be useful in our discussion. 74s181 (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

However, WP:NPOV says nothing about 'cruft'. I thought that perhaps 'tiny minority view' might be a better label to use than 'cruft', but then I checked, and surprise! there is actually an essay (NOT a policy or guideline) on cruft! It appears to be very relevant to this discussion even though it is more focused on 'fan' articles. John Foxe, if you haven't read this essay I suggest you do so. The essay also references What Wikipedia is not, which, among other things says that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a battleground, two big problems we're having. 74s181 (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My views are no more extreme than yours; they're as mainstream for a non-Mormon as yours are for a Mormon; and if we both regard facts as authoritative, there's no reason why we can't work together to improve the quality of this article.--John Foxe (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your views are far different and I think more extreme than mine. Yours are not "non-Mormon". They are "Anti-Mormon". And as for my views being mainstream Mormon views, I am unfit to judge -- not really knowing what "mainstream Mormon" views would be. But based upon my interactions with Mormons I would say that my views are not always the same as theirs but my views are also not antagonistic (usually) and are "forgivable", "overlookable" (which might be a word had the Inkhornists had their way) or "compatible" with theirs. On the other hand, I am not sure that is so with my views and yours. For example, I am pretty certain that Joseph Smith sometimes lied, so perhaps you would think that we are in agreement. But, I am almost just as certain that Jesus also lied or deceived people. I suspect you would not agree. And how we handled that belief and those issues is where we differ. For example, I notice that in the Biography of Jesus, we do not really relate the alternate story of his nativity -- the one where we actually know the name and occupation of his father and possibly we can even point to his father's grave. Now, you might say "Well go and put it in". For me, perhaps a tiny bit might be ok, but frankly going very far into that would be undue weight because all of these rumors and speculations are not the best evidence or they are arcane and exotic to a profound degree -- so that they are reasonably doubtful. But it is exactly that sort of cruft that you are putting in this article, for the purpose of impugning and raising doubts. Not only that but you seek these sources out with an agenda to prove something, you obtain them from obscure, superseded sources and you apply them with a deep satisfaction. This is something I would never do, it is something I consider to be morally wrong and it is something I distinctly disagree with you on. I would no more do that to an article on Jesus or Joseph Smith than I would seek out and put in edits that provided opinions of medical experts on the anatomy of Ganesha -- and I would object to such things as cruft (even if they are true). I am not sure that you would understand that. Thus, we are quite different in a way that I think may not be resolvable.--Blue Tie (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing people won't take us far. Is D. Michael Quinn a Mormon scholar, a non-Mormon scholar, or an anti-Mormon scholar? Well, that depends.

There is a qualitative difference between history that occurred many centuries ago and the history of Mormonism. As Martin Marty has well said, Mormon beginnings are so recent that there is "no place to hide. What can be sequestered in Mormon archives and put beyond the range of historians can often be approached by sources outside them....There is little protection for Mormon sacredness."

You seem to imply that it's morally wrong to warn others of error; you even seem willing to eliminate truth if you believe it to be "cruft." In my view, it doesn't make any difference whether lies are exposed with satisfaction or grief; the important thing is that they be exposed. If you're interested in truth, in exposing the lies of Joseph Smith (or anyone else for that matter), then we can be on the same side. If not, not.

I'm not a bit interested in rumors, speculations, or arcane knowledge; but no sources are obscure or superseded unless proved such. And why, as a defender of Mormonism, should your opinion about which material is "cruft" be more determinative than mine?--John Foxe (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In categorizing people for wikipedia articles, I prefer to give an objective but relevant title to people if they hold one. For example, if Quinn was a Professor of History at the time of a quote, identify him as a Professor of History. If he was not a professor at the time (unemployed) he might be referred to by his degree "Doctor of History" or "Trained Historian". If Wesley Walters had no such title but instead was a minister in the Presbyterian Church, you could identify him as "Reverend". No need to go into any speculative details about their motives with pov labels.

There is no qualitative difference in history. There is a quantitative difference in the evidences for different historical events, but that is not the same thing. I do not consider Martin Marty's statement to be quite as precocious as you do. (When I wrote that I thought "He will believe its because it is against Mormonism that I feel that way". Heh. Its funny but not really flattering that you believe I am so shallow.)

It is morally wrong to use wikipedia to warn people of imagined spiritual errors. I do not believe that wikipedia is about truth, but even if it were, I would have serious problems with your sense of what is truth and what is not. I have had that discussion with you before, when I first interacted with you. As I said then, your whole desire for "truth" on wikipedia is misguided and it is one of the core problems you have as an editor here. There is no doubt in my mind that you are fascinated by rumors, speculation, or arcane knowledge if it fits your pre-conceived notions. At least in this article. Your edits on such things speak far louder than your current denials. And your insistence upon the discredited and superseded Walters study is an example.

One of the key indicators of cruft is proximity. In this case, the subject is the First Vision. A more narrow subject might be the Dating of the First Vision. Things start to get crufty when we find ourselves talking about a 59 foot error in the location of a backwoods LOG HUT as though it were a significant matter in either of these things. The "proximity" to the subject is remote. If you read a statement in the article or even in the footnotes and ask "What does this have to do with the First Vision?" and you get a weird, convoluted, tangled long reply, you know you are not in Kansas any more... you are in Cruftville and you can start to look around for a pov warrior who is driving the bus.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is morally wrong to use Wikipedia "to warn people of imagined spiritual errors." But I believe it praiseworthy to distinguish between historical fact and historical fiction. I believe in truth (notice, no sneer quotes), and I'm willing to follow wherever it leads whether or not it conforms to my preconceived notions.

You've not proved that Walter's study has been discredited or superseded. You've just declared it to be so.

I don't understand how you can at the same time regard the move to Manchester an excellent benchmark for the dating of the First Vision and at the same time complain that evidence about when that move may have occurred is "crufty." And why, as a defender of Mormonism, should your opinion about which material is "cruft" be more determinative than mine?--John Foxe (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to give Joseph' s critics any benefit of the doubt. He Smith told the canonical story in 1838 during a period of turmoil in the church, and this undoubtedly benefited his position resulted in even more presecution, and ultimately his martyrdom. Smith had Critics have a conflict of interest and because of this conflict and the price Smith ultimately paid,, every other his witness to these early events is putatively more trustworthy than he theirs. When Joseph said that the vision occurred in the spring of 1820, the question we should be asking is not how many weeks plus or minus we can allow him but whether there is any credence in his story at all exactly what the believing POV is, and what the non-believing POV is, after all, WP:NPOV says we should report on the debate, not engage in it. 74s181 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point about 'unusual excitement', I'm sorry I didn't pick up on that sooner. I've been obsessing about one particular thing, I missed the very important point you were making. 74s181 (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Although this discussion isn't really relevant anymore, I still disagree about the 'removal to Manchester', this was not like moving from one apartment to another, even on the other side of town, especially not like moving to another state. Land had to be cleared, a dwelling built. Joseph no doubt helped in these things, so 'our removal' could be when JS,Sr, JS,Jr, and Alvin loaded up tools, bedrolls and supplies, built themselves a lean-to and began clearing the property. Or, it could be after they finished a dwelling and began moving the family. Or...? 74s181 (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Presbyterian connection

Maybe JS,Jr. was mistaken about his family being proselyted to the Presbyterian church prior to 1820. Or, here's an interesting thought, maybe they were proselyted, maybe they even joined, but they stopped attending when JS,Jr. told his mother “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true", or, more likely, after he was first visited by Moroni. Then when Alvin died she returned and 'sought comfort' there. Another important question, how far was it to the nearest Presbyterian church? I doubt weekly attendance was the norm in that time and place, especially for the Smith family. JS, Sr. would have been resistant, travel was probably involved, and this would be especially difficult given the family circumstances as you are so fond of pointing out, John Foxe. I thought I had a link to the LMS manuscript at the BYU archives, but I can't find it, so I can't verify exactly what LMS said about this. I know you have the EMD book, does she say 'sought comfort' as you have summarized it in the article, or does she say that they 'joined' (were baptized?) after Alvin's death? 74s181 (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucy has just concluded discussing the death of Alvin. "About this time their was a great revival in religion and the whole neighborhood was very much aroused to the subject and we among the rest flocked to the meeting house to see if their was a word of comfort for us that might releive our overcharged feelings....Joseph also said I do not want to keep any of you from joining any church you like but you will not stay with them long."(1845)EMD,I: 306-07.

Why would Joseph tell LMS, after the death of Alvin, that he didn't care if they joined the Presbyterian Church (the Presbyterians had the only meeting house at that point) when according to JS-History, he told Lucy, "I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true" about four years earlier?

We know that Lucy and three of her children joined the Western Presbyterian Church because they were disfellowshipped on March 10, 1830 after eighteen months of procedural delay; but we don't know when they joined because the membership records for the earlier period are not extant. After Benjamin Stockton preached Alvin's funeral, he served in the 1824-25 awakening, and then took the pastorate of the Western Presbyterian Church for a couple of years, leaving town just about the time Joseph started to dictate the Book of Mormon.--John Foxe (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that even a seasoned professional minister might have a hard time telling a grieving mother that her son was probably going straight to hell, even if the doctrines of his church said it was true. When Alvin died, JS,Jr. was, what? 17 years old? What do you think, was he going to tell his mother, "No, mom, all those churches are false, you're just going to have to wait..." 74s181 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did Joseph tell his mother that Presbyterianism wasn't true in 1820 before she became a Presbyterian? Why Presbyterian and not all the other apostate churches?--John Foxe (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Why did Joseph tell his mother that Presbyterianism wasn't true..." I suppose this is a response to my earlier comment that JS,Jr. may have been mistaken about when LMS joined the Presbyterian church. That statement was an attempt to think outside the box in response to a 'historical fact' that turned out to be not a fact at all. This is at least the third time you've taught me this particular lesson, I'll try not to make that mistake again. 74s181 (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to 'truth' and 'historical facts' we have JS,Jr's statement that LMS was "...proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and... joined that church" prior to 1820. John Foxe, apparently you have nothing to support a post-1820 date other than "...flocked to the meeting house to see if their was a word of comfort for us..." and "...we don't know when they joined because the membership records for the earlier period are not extant". So by your own logic JS,Jr's statement is a 'historical fact' and should stand unopposed. However, we can't really 'prove' either possibility, and we shouldn't even try according to WP:NPOV policy. What JS,Jr. said and LDS believe about the FV is a POV, and what others say and believe about the FV is also a POV. Both are equally 'true' here on WP. The only thing we should be arguing about is how to best present these two opposing POVs in a WP:NPOV manner. Instead, we're arguing about 'historical facts' and 'Truth'. 74s181 (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree then that Lucy Smith was in error when she said that after the death of Alvin (three years after the First Vision), Joseph told her he didn't care if she and her children joined the Presbyterian Church?--John Foxe (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree because that is not what she said, at least according to the quote you provided.

"Joseph also said I do not want to keep any of you from joining any church you like but you will not stay with them long."

"I do not want to keep any of you from joining" is not the same as "I don't care".

"...any church" is not the same as "Presbyterian Church".

"...but you will not stay with them long" was a tacit acknowledgement that these other churches were false, and that the Smith family would quickly recognize this. 74s181 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, his mother is grieving for the loss of her child, JS,Jr. is only 17 or 18, what would you expect him to say to his grieving mother? Years later, he received a revelation now recorded as D&C 137, which has been a great comfort to many LDS and I'm sure was also a great comfort to Lucy and JS,Sr. 74s181 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(an aside) I think this illustrates an important point that has stuck within LDS theology. That even if you are told what to do, you do not force others to do it as well. Romney used this to show that as Governor he could support alcohol consumption even within his home, and yet not drink, and even support pro-choice legislation, while personally being pro-life. Bytebear (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you folks want to claim that Lucy Smith was already a member of the Presbyterian church at the time of the First Vision in 1820 (when Joseph told her that Presbyterianism was not true), then he couldn't tell her after the death of Alvin (1823) that he didn't want to keep her from joining "any church you like" because she was already a member of the Presbyterian church. Don't you agree then that Lucy Smith must have been in error about when this conversation occurred? (As Voltaire once wrote, "Confound details, they are a vermin which destroy books.")--John Foxe (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"If you folks want to claim..." Us folks don't claim it, JS,Jr. did. 74s181 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"...she was already a member of the Presbyterian church..." Maybe he thought that she was dissatisfied with the Presbyterian church and might join some other church. Maybe he thought she had 'quit' the church and would have to re-join. We don't know. If he had said "...keep you from joining the Presbyterian church...", your argument would be on firmer ground, but it still wouldn't be proof. But proof isn't the point, as I've said many times.

John Foxe, do you have a WP:RS expert that interprets Lucy's statements about 'seeking comfort' as proof of anything? If so, put it in the article with an appropriate attribution, otherwise, "...places the date of the first vision no earlier than 1823" is WP:OR. 74s181 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The best expert here is Lucy herself. She said she wanted to join after the death of Alvin. We know she was a member of Western Presbyterian Church in the 1820s. We know Joseph said, "OK, but I won't participate." No interpretation is needed.--John Foxe (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

By all means let's look at Lucy's words. "...we among the rest flocked to the meeting house to see if their was a word of comfort for us..." Doesn't say she had previously joined or was contemplating joining. 74s181 (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A newly added quote says:

In 1845, Lucy Mack Smith said that she tried "to persuade my husband to join with them as I wished to do so myself."

This could work if this statement were expanded to include something that placed it after Alvin's death. Assuming that you can do that, the chain of logic would be, "JS,Jr., writing 18 years after the fact said the FV occurred in 1820 after LMS and other members of the family joined the Presbyterian Church, but LMS, writing 20 years after the fact said that she joined the Presbyterian Church after Alvin's death which occurred in 1823, but didn't place this event before or after the FV. This raises a minor question about JS,Jr's dating of the FV." 74s181 (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you can tie the LMS statement to Alvin's death, and assuming you can find a WP:RS expert to explain the significance of this, then you'll have proved that either JS,Jr. or LMS was mistaken about when LMS joined the Presbyterian church. You won't have proved anything about the FV, but if a WP:RS expert says that the date that LMS joined the Presbyterian Church is relevant to the FV, then it is relevant and belongs somewhere in the article. Otherwise it is still WP:OR. 74s181 (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I've added will satisfy you, but I'll be glad to work on it if it doesn't. In my view at least, every time you object to something, I learn more, and the article gets stronger.

I think this date problem is a greater problem for LDS apologists than you admit. In the canonical version, Joseph says that the vision occurred in 1820; if Lucy is right about joining the Presbyterian church after the death of Alvin (1823)—and it would be tough for her to get that one wrong unless she were well into senility—then the date of the First Vision would have to be moved to the spring of 1825 and that would mean moving the Moroni vision to no earlier than September 1825. This would complicate other parts of the story down the line. Plus, instead of Joseph being fourteen, he would be nineteen.--John Foxe (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)

What you've done is an improvement. However, there is still a flaw in your logic. If Lucy's dating is correct, it doesn't prove that that FV didn't occur in 1820, it just proves that JS,Jr. was mistaken about when LMS joined the Presbyterian Church. However, if you have a WP:RS expert who says that this casts doubt upon the 1838 / JSH / PoGP account, then that is relevant and should be reported. 74s181 (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I don't know if you noticed but the references are broken. I think you have some unbalanced ref tags, I found one and fixed it but there are more. 74s181 (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to at least partially agree with Blue Tie, the "Dating the First Vision" section contains a lot of minutia. But I think these discussions are important. I think the section belongs, but maybe not where it is. That is, all this discussion about the date is really a 'response' kind of thing, maybe would be more appropriate in the 'response' section. 74s181 (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the references. I fixed them, but I also moved the Walters and Quinn comments into the text. You may prefer to put them back in the notes again.

Because the First Vision is the alleged spiritual experience of an individual, it's not susceptible to proof or disproof. So I agree it could have happened in 1820. But if Joseph Smith was wrong about when his mother and sibs joined the Presbyterian church, then he was also wrong about the date of the revival that led to their decision to join the church, and therefore he was wrong about the date when he became concerned about discovering which of the competing denominations was true. These events are inextricably linked. No one, Mormon or non-Mormon, cares about the date of the Smith membership in the Presbyterian church per se.--John Foxe (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism Research Ministry

Just because a publication is considered 'anti-mormon' does not make it "not reliable"; their stated policy is "challenging the claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since 1979." That alone does not make them "not reliable". A Google search showed none of the alleged denunciations of them by 'Christian Groups'... certainly any such allegations would have turned up on the first few pages of such a search. We have started down a slippery slope here, unless you want to start a trend of challenging other publications as "not reliable" simply because of their 'pro-mormon' or 'anti-mormon' slant. Something to consider: a good place to start with such allegations would probably be FARMS, whose practices has been questioned here and elsewhere. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The video link is actually not owned by MRM, but is a video by "Search for the Truth" ministries. Here is what Wikipedia has about reaction to this video (and the video "The Godmakers" which this video is essentially a remake of.

From the Search for the Truth (video) article:

The Anti-Defamation League, an advocacy group which fights anti-Semitism, condemned the video as "nothing more than 'Mormon bashing'." Bill Straus, Regional Director of the Anti-Defamation League, stated,

"This is the same kind of plain, old-fashioned Mormon-bashing that Jim Robertson and his group have been spewing for over a quarter-of-a-century. The only difference is that back then, it was the film, 'The God Makers,' and today it's the DVD, 'Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith.' It was wrong then, and it's wrong now."

From The God Makers (film) article

National Conference of Christians and Jews (NCCJ) editor Max Jennings attended a showing in Mesa Arizona that was “sponsored by a group known as Concerned Christians” whose purpose was “to reach out in love to those lost in Mormonism.” Jennings reported that “If what I saw Tuesday night is love, I must have had the wrong Sunday School lessons back in that dusty west Texas Methodist Church of my childhood. I didn’t hear anyone reaching out in love Tuesday night. I heard people reaching out in hatred of another’s right to believe what he wants.”

The NCCJ committee sent a letter to “Concerned Christians” on 5 December 1983 which stated, among other things, that,

"The film does not fairly portray the Mormon Church, Mormon history, or Mormon belief. It makes extensive use of half-truths, faulty generalizations, sensationalism, and is not reflective of the true spirit of Mormon faith. We find particularly offensive the emphasis that Mormonism is some sort of subversive plot-a danger to the community, a threat to the institution of marriage, and destructive to the mental health of teenagers. We are of the opinion that the film relies heavily on appeals to fear, prejudice and unworthy human emotions."

So, aside from not being academic in the least, the source video has been condemned as untrue by very reliable sources. It adds no information, and in fact spreads misinformation. Bytebear (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

So, a couple fringe groups have criticized them, and we should discount their contributions? Just about anything the ADL says should be taken with a grain of salt ... the others are not exactly mainstream 'Christian Groups' either.

FARMS academic 'science' and practices have also been questioned by many others, so I can't see that part of your argument. All in all this boils down to what each of us considers 'reliable sources'; it is your opinion (along with a couple special interest groups) that "the source video has been condemned as untrue by very reliable sources. It adds no information, and in fact spreads misinformation ". Not quite good enough to exclude it from Wikipedia. Duke53 | ^Talk 12:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I note that the video itself—not just the organization that produced it—is specifically criticized by the ADL and NCCJ for deliberately misrepresenting Mormon beliefs. That's a pretty strong statement about the integrity of the actual source being used, going beyond the sort of general accusation of unreliability that you allude to regarding FARMS. That the two organizations are completely unaffiliated with the LDS church makes their criticisms difficult to discount, and I do not understand your basis for saying that they have to be taken with a grain of salt. If they likewise took issue with a FARMS paper using similar terminology to describe its unreliability, it would be completely fair to forbid it from WP as a reliable source.

That said, if you are not persuaded the video is an unreliable source, then may I suggest opening a Request for Comment to seek broader input from the community on the question? It seems that if we cannot agree on any outside views as authoritative concerning the reliability of the source, then the authority for making that judgment would have to come from the general WP community. Would you be willing to take this course of action if there continues to be disagreement here? alanyst ^/talk/ 14:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Before I delve deeper into this (I'm on my way to work) I have one question to ask: are we to take everything that the ADL says on the topic of religion as truthful, unbiased and factual ? Think about the ramifications of that for a bit. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a different question than what we're dealing with here; I don't think anyone's suggesting that the ADL be regarded as universally infallible. In this case, we have two organizations that (so far as I know) are independent of each other and of Search for the Truth Ministries and the LDS church. Both have denounced the video on specific grounds. Why might their judgment be unfounded regarding this video? I'm willing to entertain a good rationale for dismissing their views if one can be articulated. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"That's a different question than what we're dealing with here ...". Not really ... the question of their 'expertise' in these matters is a vital part of the equation. Another editor summed up his edits to this article thusly: "not a reliable source" and "It has been denounced by Christian groups as anti-Mormon. Not reliable " ... well, if there is any question about the reliability of those 'Christian Groups' then I feel that this must be answered long before we use them as sources. Groups that may have biases of their own must be looked at very carefully, before we take their claims as gospel. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have requested outside input at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Discussion will hopefully occur on this talk page though so the thread of conversation doesn't get lost. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't cite MRM. (Not that it's not allowed; just that it doesn't help our credibility at WP. Unless you want a FARMS-vs-MRM tit-for-tat in the article.) Can't the same point be made some other way? Tom Haws (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)