Talk:Joseph Smith

An event in this article is a January 12 selected anniversary

Archives

This is an index of archived portions of the discussion at this page. Archives help keep pages fast, accessible, and more usable. Scroll down to see current discussion for this article.

• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 1 - includes sections "Unresolved questions", "Joseph Smith image", "Disputed edits", "Neutrality", and "Vandalism"
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 2 - includes sections "Moroni's Visit", "Succession Crisis", "Succession Crisis", "Plural Marriage", "Importance of First Vision", "Using the words some and claimed", "Images", "Title", "POV edits", and "Propose we make a Mormonism WikiProject".
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 3 - includes section "President Box".
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 4 - includes sections "Quinn" and "Plural Marriage removal".
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 5 - includes sections about Danites, JS as feature article.
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 6 - includes sections about "Smith's Death", "Featured Article", "Comments from 66.87.28.66", "Plural Marriage/DNA testing", "Brigham Young transfiguration legend.", "Interesting question", "Introductory paragraphs", "References and footnotes", "Family and Marriage(s)", "King Follett Discourse needs detail", "Infobox problems", "New Bushman biography", "Proposed new public domain image of Moroni and Joseph", "Newsweek Cover Story", "More info on the jailing / lynching", "About featured status", "New split-off article covering Smith's early history", "Company seeking their share", "Nominating Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. for peer review", and "Nominating Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr as a Featured Article Candidate". This is every section (since the last archive) that was created before December 2005.
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 7 - includes sections: Urim & Thummim, Dradamh, City Beautiful controversy, Spinoff articles, ...,Biased article, NPOV disputes, Plural wives section, Nancy Johnson, additional NPOV concerns.
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 8 - includes sections: FreedominThought's NPOV concerns, Reverting edits by anonymous editors, Life In Missour section, Changes, good luck, Witnesses, Life in Missouri subsection, Jesus Christ to Jesus, Gathering of Israel subsection, Quotes that Mormons were considered abolitionsists, Inclusions by 67.9.135.139 and 65.70.157.104, Intro edits, NPOV dispute (Ongoing NPOV concerns), Sock puppetry accusations, Issue with Mormonlicious edits, NPOV: Mission Impossible?, More intro edits, In before bcatt reverts me, That's right, it needs reverting, No other Religious Leader is treated with such a negative POV
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 9 - includes sections: "An interesting quote, Archives, Is The South Park Episode Accurate?, NPOV Tag revisited, The dispute history, Improved, Quotation Marks, Recent edits, Joseph Smith, Smith's wives and children, Eldest son dying, Edited introductory paragraph, Edits on Smith's Death, Editing section "1827 to 1831"

• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 10 - includes sections: Polygamy: Cultural or religious heresy?, Was it Moroni or Nephi that gave the plates?, Rigdon needs earlier reference in article, Comments of User:Hoboken, Re: Archive 9 - Is South Park quote Accurate?, Masonry, Joseph Smith diaries, Removed paragraph, Polygyny, Fawn Brodie & Bushman, Bullet-list in introductory paragraph?, His family supported Strang, Succession boxes, Citations, Crystal gazing sentence removal, References, Recent edit on D&C 111:4"
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 11 - includes sections:Haun's Mill, Death, Masonry, First Vision, Splitting the article, witnesses, Media section, SouthPark, Reasonss for POV tag, Mob persecution, 1826 trial, Church of Christ, Myth of Joseph Smith killing two men at Carthage, Polygamy, Early life, Quotes, Last words, Racism, Criminal record, Reformed Egyptian, Image, Mason, Abraham, Persecution, Missionary category
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 12

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)

Extermination Order

Could someone please explain how the Extermination Order has been completely excised from the article. It has become phrased in such milk toast terms as:

"an executive order for which there was no formal apology until 1976", and

"Latter Day Saint property was confiscated and the Saints driven from Missouri by the spring of 1839.[74]"

No mention of an extermination order, no explanation of the cruelty of such an order, the fact that at no other time in American history has anything similar been issued by government, or its impact on Joseph Smith and his role as prophet and leader of this religious group. We do have a statement that comes out of the blue, "Once the Latter Day Saints no longer posed a political threat, Missouri leaders realized that Mormon behavior could hardly be classified as treason whereas, as Fawn Brodie has written, the governor's "exterminating order stank to heaven."[80] How does this make sense? No one has explained the presence of an extermination order, that whole section has been white washed and treated as an "executive order" as in the President issued an executive order to pardon two turkeys on Thanksgiving.

Now, when I find this significant event being repeatedly expunged from the introduction, I begin to question if the objective is NPOV, or something which is the exact opposite. Please explain, John, because this looks like it "stinks to heaven". You said you rewrote the body, I assume that this is your work, but I have not verified it. I hope that it is not. Regardless, this event was significant in the life of Joseph Smith and his followers. I wonder if we should refer to the Jewish Holocaust as the result of Hitler's executive order and minor misunderstanding of the German government? --^StormRider 02:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

On another note, how does a mob's murder of an incarcerated group turn into an "assassination". That is so sterile as to be wholly lacking in any degree of description that reflects the event. JFK was assassinated. Robert Kennedy and MLK, Jr. were assassinated. Mobs attacking incarcerated black men in the southern jails is not assassination, but lynching and murder. Do you think there is a way we could actually describe the event? I am sure readers will not be overly influenced by sharing history with them. --^StormRider 02:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the Missouri extermination order should not be mentioned in the lede is that it has virtually no connection with Joseph Smith. At the time of the Mormon War, he was virtually invisible. Bushman says he "disappeared from view during the military action."(364) The extermination order would justly play a greater role in say, an article about the Mormon War or early Mormonism rather than in a biography of Joseph Smith. I'm convinced that Mormons were victims in Missouri; they just weren't innocent victims. An NPOV article need not, and should not, try to assess the mutual blame for what occurred in 1838. This is a biography about Joseph Smith, and at best, Smith delegated overmuch authority to his associates during this period.

As for assassination being the right word to apply to Smith's murder, the word "assassination" means to murder an important person. (We can charitably overlook the fact that neither MLK nor Robert Kennedy were blazing away at their attackers with firearms when they were killed.)--John Foxe (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see how a six shooter spells a veritable death knell to a mob of 200 men and exonerates their "forced" attack on Smith and all. Heck, if they had known the bloke was so fully armed they could of at least brought in another 2,000 men with cannon to ensure the safe "taking of life" or maybe "the removal of breath for an extended period" of the small group of men armed with a six shooter. It takes a very, very one-sided POV to turn an instance of trapped men in a second floor room being attacked by 200 men, guns blazing, shooting at everyone in the room, killing two of them and then say, Joseph was assassinated. We could say, Smith lost his life on June 27, 1844. That would demonstrate absolutely no responsibility on those innocent, God-fearing men that were forced to attack well-armed man (he had six balls in the gun). This is spinning at its worst! What makes it so difficult is that you actually write this stuff with a straight face and then defend it as starightforward history.

So what you are saying is that Joseph Smith played no role, was absent, during the Extermination Order when his people were forced to abandon their homes and leave the State during the winter of 1838. Further, that Smith being "virtually invisible" during this time is not worth mentioning. As the leader of this movement, it seems like it is of utmost importance to the history to mention why he was absent and what he did while being invisible. Also, the Mormon War is not the Extermination Order. I understand why you have expunged the term from the article, it is so difficult to downplay a state government issuing an E-X-T-E-R-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N Order against an entire group of people. How many times has that happened in the United States? What other people suffered such a similar order in world history? If it is important in their history, might it be at least worth a mention in this article? Geez, if we mention it in the article we would be forcing poor readers to think of Smith and his people of victims. Of course, they couldn't be victims because they, in your opinion, "they just weren't innocent victims." Joseph Smith and his people, by their very existence, asked to be exterminated by the righteous, God-fearing ministers and good Christian people who complied with the request! This is just too rich.

I suggest the following:

1. The fact that the extermination order not be hidden in the article body as it is now. That it actually be dicussed in forthright terms, historically accurate terms and then linked to the article for a full explnaation.
2. The introduction actually comply with WP:LEAD.
3. The article be reviewed, edited for conciseness and a neutral view point.

John, you might want to step back just a little. If you can't see how strong your POV is that you expunge something so terrible as an extermination order from the history of Joseph Smith and his followers; not from the introduction, but from the entire article. When you do these types of things you lose all credibility.

In my previous edits and in this edit I have been sarcastic and, to some degree, exaggerated the issues to demonstrate the silliness of your position. I should not be so sarcastic, but this degree of POV is really not acceptable for article. I honestly think that it is "spinning" at its very worst. I suspect that what makes it so distasteful, is that I think, John, that you know it is and still defend it. --^StormRider 18:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the paragraph says:

Thereafter "the Saints were bullied and threatened," and they responded in kind. Latter Day Saint families were driven from their farms, and Saints burned buildings belonging to the Missourians. In October 1838 a Mormon contingent skirmished with the Richmond County militia at the Battle of Crooked River. Three Mormons and a Missourian were killed. Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs declared that the Mormons be "exterminated or driven from the state", an executive order for which there was no formal apology until 1976. A few days later a small party of Missourians surprised and massacred a Latter Day Saint settlement at Haun's Mill.

Where's the POV?--John Foxe (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you see any problems with it? --^StormRider 19:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My preference would be to eliminate the apology date and note that the Missourians who committed the massacre at Haun's Mill did not know about the extermination order. Otherwise, I think it's good NPOV description.--John Foxe (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The small bit about 1976 was agreed via consensus, after discussion back & forth and a trimming... Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:10, 16 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)

Golden Plates/Book of Mormon

Reviewing these sections, may I make a few comments?

Would it be worthwhile to include a quick mention of the Golden plates#Unsuccessful retrieval attempts? This could further illustrate how JSJr acknowledged his own 'treasure hunting' and considered it to have initially impeded him from receiving the plates (assuming the quotations used in that article are authoritative).

The brief mentions of the Urim and Thummim somewhat confusing. Wasn't the breastplate mentioned in the "Golden Plates" section, part of the urim and thummim, or attached to it? These seer stones are also considered by the Latter-day Saints to be bound into a set of spectacles. The article states that he put the seer stones in the bottom of his hat, but not all the sources cited agreed that they were 'in the bottom of his hat' (I wonder if the stones detached from the spectacles or something). I also wonder about the credibility of the quotes given, were they first-hand witnesses? Some obviously were. Despite the ambiguity of the historicity of the situation, I think these brief references to the Urim and Thummim could be expressed better.

And finally, have you seen how many of the citations are Bushman? Or how many times the article states: "According to Bushman..." No matter how great of a source Bushman may be, the article becomes Bushman's article if we are always citing him. This isn't an article on Bushman. I think some items could easily be re-referenced, without needing to change the text at all. For example: 'According to Richard Bushman, "From then on, Joseph's life revolved around the plates."' It seems obvious from the later-given fact that he "dictated most of the Book of Mormon to Cowdery between early April and late June" that he was absorbed in the plates. Whether Bushman was trying to indicate that this period of his life revolved around the plates, or if he was implying that the entire rest of his life had changed direction because of the plates, there are probably many other sources we could find that would say the same thing.

I haven't changed anything in the article yet but do invite others to act upon my suggestions as they see fit, according to consensus. Also note that the two articles I linked to in this comment seem to be somewhat one-sided supporting the general LDS view at the moment. --B F^izz _(e•t•c) 07:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bushman has been quoted because of his recent book, Rough Stone Rolling. It is a pretty dynamic piece of history, but feel free to bring in other reliable references. The edits you see are a reflection of the editors and their knowledge of the subject. There is always room for improvement.

The topic of the Urim and Thummim and the seer stones (or the whole conversation about the translation of the Book of Mormon in general) is not well understood by people at large and more importantly because there is so little information available. There is conflicting pieces of recorded history and the article currently reflects history as not seen by the Latter Day Saint movement, but rather from the perspective of critics. LDS rely on the term Urim and Thummim rather than seer stones as the process through which the interpretation was completed. However, you will find conflicting testimony that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim, seer stone, and nothing but direct revelation toward the end of the process. Joseph gave very little information about how the translation was done except to say through the Urim and Thummim and the power of God. The stove pipe hat is a favorite story of anti-Mormons and they much prefer to focus on that rendition of history because it sounds so silly and best frames their perspective that Smith was a con artist from the start.

It is best to be bold and when you see where you can improve the article, do it. You will find that if your edits are less than acceptable someone will revert it quickly and you can then begin to discuss it on this page. As you review the archive section you will see that there has been no shortage of discussion in the past and I don't see that changing. Just enjoy the discussion and be prepared to defend your edits. Cheers. --^StormRider 08:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The article as it stands is a fine example of both NPOV and literary style. For that reason the article has been basically stable for some months now. Although the article might be improved by some stylistic pruning, any changes that make it longer are prima facie suspicious. As for Bushman, he is cited repeatedly because he is both a recognized scholar and Mormon patriarch, in other words about the most neutral source one is likely to bring into evidence.--John Foxe (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

John, I don't disagree with you about Bushman being an excellent reference, but your reasoning is a little off. The office of patriarch is not the equivalent of the office of Patriarch in the Eastern Orthodox Church or other churches that use the term. A Patriarch is in individual that is called to provide patriarchal blessings to individuals. He has no ecclesiastical authority except to provide those blessings for the membership within the stake in which he was called. It is not a leadership position of any kind. LDS would think of a patriarch as a spiritual person. However, it does not make his book more respected. His book is respected because he is an academic scholar in history. Does that make sense?

As far as being stable, never interpret silence as acceptance. The two do not equate and never have. This is an prima facie example of why B Fizz made this statement. --^StormRider 18:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand the nature of the LDS patriarch. I could have explained that Bushman was a former bishop or that he is an older fellow who's paid his dues as a Mormon throughout his academic career, but saying "patriarch" was easier. Also, using a believer's account throughout the article helps blunt the charge that it's anti-Mormon.

As for the stability of the article: about a year ago, I looked in on it and said, "No way I am going to be a part of that zoo." But during the past few months, most of what I've done here has been reverting vandalism. Its says something for the quality of the article as it stands when partisans on either side fail to come up with substantive changes that stick.--John Foxe (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

More sources are generally better than fewer, so I think we should leave Bushman and add other refs. On stability ... Though we are all grateful for the removal of vandalism, how are changes supposed to stick if we undo everything that isn't written by ourselves!? As a newcomer, I worry 'stability' might just be a euphemism for 'protracted edit war.' However, because there is basically a good narrative flow to the article, we should generally have more discussion than less to prevent mangling the good parts.--Adlib24 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The way things stick is through consensus. And there hasn't been any consensus for change because almost every sentence of the article has been beaten to death in the past and the quality of the prose is so high in the present. When the biggest month-to-month changes in an article are made by vandals and bots, you've got something going.--John Foxe (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the "Book of Mormon" section, please be so kind as to review the changes. There remain, if I counted correctly, 8 direct quotations from Bushman in the text of the article, which, in my opinion, is too much. Several of the quotations are prosy and don't really communicate anything about JSJr, but rather Bushman's opinion or impression of him. I figured before removing the following two quotations I should check for consensus:

• "Smith had a green thumb for growing ideas" - If it had been said by someone of his time it might be more worthwhile to keep it. The quotation concerning Masonic rites which follows could be paraphrased or reworded, rather than directly quoting Bushman. Returning to the "green thumb" thing...such a statement could be made without even citing anyone, if the rest of the article illustrates the fact so completely that anyone would agree with the statement.
• "Bushman has called his practice of plural marriage 'the most disturbing.'" And...so? It disturbs Bushman. Perhaps it would be more relevant to state if it disturbed people around Joseph during his time? Can you even find the word "disturbing" in any biography with "featured" status? It's a little POVish.

My point is that Bushman is one person, and perhaps when the article is using "according to Bushman" it should really refer to a relevent group affected by Smith. Bushman in and of himself cannot represent such groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B Fizz (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bushman has written the most thorough, scholarly biography of Joseph Smith to date. And he's a Mormon believer. You don't state on what grounds eight quotations from his 700-page work would be inappropriate. As for whether plural marriage disturbed Joseph's contemporaries: yes, they killed him. Nevertheless, in the interest of consensus, I've eliminated two Bushman quotations myself--John Foxe (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Shorten Succession

Since the section doesn't deal directly with Smith, I propose that we reduce the "succession" material significantly. Minimal information about Strang, Joseph III, Young, and perhaps Rigdon should suffice. Do the rest of you agree, or do you think more information would be necessary? --B F^izz _(e•t•c) 23:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The devil's in the details of making the cuts. Although if I were beginning to write this article fresh, I wouldn't have produced such a long paragraph, the section was considerably longer when I got here. At this point it's probably best just to leave well enough alone. The information is useful. Besides, the section as it stands now is a more easily understandable and literate guide than the much longer article on the Succession crisis.--John Foxe (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As I looked it over, I had a hard time finding what I would take out as well. Despite the fact that it doesn't deal directly with Joseph Smith, it does deal with his legacy. Reducing the section any more seems like it would take away from the flow of the prose and make it a choppy presentation of factoids. Just peachy...the article needs to be shortened...but where to take from? --B F^izz _(e•t•c) 18:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How an article holds together and its literary quality are in my view more important than length per se. Critics of Wikipedia all seem to have favorite examples of disproportional sets of articles. If you disregard the footnotes, "Succession crisis" itself is as long as this one. So is the biography of Frank Sandford, an obscure cult leader at the turn of the twentieth century. Patti Smith, the contemporary punk poet, has a biography just a bit shorter. What this article has going for it is its internal consistency and stylish (for an encyclopedia) writing throughout. In my opinion, it's at least as good as the Joseph Smith piece in American National Biography. If you'd like to practice your editing skill, B, I'd suggest trying to hack your way through the jungle of disjointed organization and pedestrian writing at Succession crisis.--John Foxe (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

First Vision edit

Just to explain a little my edit on the First Vision section: The theophany article states that it is an appearance of diety to man. A recent edit changed the word "God" to "an angel," but not all angels are considered diety so I changed it back to "God" since that is the meaning of the word theophany, applied to this context. I also modified the comment made about the various accounts of the first vision, merging it with the nearby Bushman citation and changing the wording to be a little more apologetic. --B F^izz _(e•t•c) 04:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Angels in America

I noticed this diff on my watchlist, a reversion by User:John Foxe of an anonymous editor's removal of the item about the play Angels in America. I'm not comfortable with the material that was restored, for three reasons:

• It is uncited. This is not necessarily a big deal; if those who are familiar with the work would unanimously agree on the description given, there's no controversy that would require a citation. (Example: the first item of "In modern media" mentions several films, and seems fine without citation because its statements regarding the films are all uncontroversial and readily verifiable.)
• It's unclear how significant the mention of (and allusion to) Joseph Smith is in the overall context of the play. Basically, is it a central facet, or a tangential mention? Either way the play could be cited (at least, if the mention in "Super Best Friends" episode of South Park merits a note), but it would be good to let the reader know how strong the link is between this bio of Smith and the play.
• "The angel...is described as the one Smith mistakenly believed to be Moroni." Whose POV is that "Smith mistakenly believed"? Is it part of the play's description of the angel and Smith's beliefs about it, or is it editorializing by whoever contributed this item?

I'm completely unfamiliar with the play myself, so if anyone watching this page has direct knowledge of it, can you help clear up these concerns? I'd tag it with something but I'm not sure if "citation needed" is the right fit for what I'm seeking. alanyst ^/talk/ 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is one of those stupid things that enter Wikipedia articles all the time. I feel the same way about mentioning everything in a South Park episode; its as if the trivial has somehow become the scholarly in this day and age. I suspect that this appeals to critics of JS because it mentions stones and Moroni. What value it has to the article is virtually nil. It does nothing to add to history. However, it does provide interest to those people who think "People", "National Enquirer" and the like to be must reads today. It nauseates me to think this passes for education and encyclopedic material. --^StormRider 00:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to find myself in agreement with you both. Of course, I think noting a film produced by the LDS Church is in the same ballpark. What would you say to eliminating all but the first item, mention of actors who've played JS in Hollywood films?--John Foxe (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I am game for deleting the entire section; there is nothing redeeming about current media in the role of historic figures. I know that this puts me at odds with those editors that so busily add this effluent, but it is one of my pet peeves on Wikipedia. Would that all similar sections in every article be could deleted. It is not history, it is not important, and it is without merit. Who takes the first swipe? --^StormRider 12:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You've got my support.--John Foxe (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Golden plates section refs (5-9) need improving

This section seems to be one that is constantly involved in edit wars. For some time, I have tried to think of what is the best way to approach it, and I have not decided whether the content even needs changing, but after taking a second look, I think the refs need some improvement. One major problem is that most of the cited references are not linked to entries in the reference section. Specifically, unlinked are in 6) Smith1838b, 7) Harris 1833, Hale 1834, Clark 1842, Turner 1851, Mather 1880, 8) Roberts 1830, 9) Bennet 1893 and Chase 1833. Another problem is that the citations are in part misleading, because the discussion in the footnotes does not link the citation to the main text. Specific problems:

Main text: Meanwhile Smith participated in a "craze for treasure hunting."

Footnote 5: The treasure-seeking culture in early 19th century New England is described in Quinn (1998, pp. 25–26).

The footnote suggests that Quinn's claim seems to be that Smith participated in a widespread phenomena of treasure hunting. The inference from the main text seems to be that Smith himself was readily caught up in the craze. Does Quinn claim that Joseph Smith was a "crazed" treasure seeker? Joseph Smith History(JSH) 1:56 seems to suggest otherwise, as Smith persuaded Stoal to stop looking. So, nevermind the controversy around Quinn, but if someone has Quinn, let's just make sure Quinn really believes Smith was a gung-ho treasure hunter, and not merely the more minor participant that Smith himself suggests.

Main text: Beginning as a youth in the early 1820s, Smith was paid to act as a "seer", using seer stones in mostly unsuccessful attempts to locate lost items and buried treasure.

Footnote 6: Smith (1838b, pp. 42–43) (stating that he was what he called a "money digger", but saying that it "was never a very profitable job to him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it"

I think the reference got mangled, it is clear from JSH 1:56 that the attempts were "mostly unsuccessful," but not at all clear that Smith claims to have acted as a seer for pay. ( I don't doubt this, I just want to make sure the ref is clear: being paid to be a moneydigger is not the same thing as being paid to be a seer).

Main text: Smith's contemporaries describe his process for finding treasure as placing the stone in a white stovepipe hat, putting his face over the hat to block the light, and then "seeing" the information in the reflections of the stone.

Footnote 7: Assorted refs.

This is rather a critical issue, because the descriptions of how Smith used seer stones, which I agree with, I have usually heard in the context of translating the Book of Mormon, not in the context of treasure seeking. Do every single one of these sources ascribe Joseph Smith as using seer stones to find treasures? If not there has been a conflation of how Smith used stones, with the more fringe claim that Smith readily used them to find treasure. Main text should probably be rewritten "process for using seer stones as"to bring it more inline with refs.

Main text: His preferred stone, which some said he also used later to translate the golden plates, was chocolate-colored and about the size of an egg.

Footnote 8: Broken Roberts link.

I think this is fine, but we could probably find other refs besides just Roberts that make this claim. Isn't it true that he did not exclusively use the chocolate seer-stone to translate? I might add 'in part' or 'among other means' to the main text for the sake of accuracy.

Last sentence is fine.

Well there you go...sound off mighty editors! --Adlib24 (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying and adding more information to footnotes is certainly a worthy goal, and I've done it to footnotes 5 and 6 as examples. But I don't think the accuracy of the information in that paragraph can be challenged by anyone knowledgeable about the subject.--John Foxe (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It would help if the references could at least be checked; when you click on them currently they go nowhere. Further, are the references repeating themselves? Harris is mentioned more than once; are the others first hand or are they hearsay? In addtion, the section completely ignores Joseph Smith's own words about the translation process. Not one of the witnesses quoted was there from beginning to end and none can say with any degree of validity what all of the processes used were. What is fact is that there were several processes and this just focuses on the most beloved method quoted by anti-Mormons. It is wonderfully sensational and can so easily be spun to sound like a joke. --^StormRider 21:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the Harvard citations, which sound like a good idea to those who advocate them but which are easily separated from the books to which they refer. Like you, I prefer citations that are obvious on their face. As for the process of translation, Emma Hale Smith, Isaac Hale, Michael Morse, Martin Harris, and Joseph Knight Sr. all said that Joseph looked at a stone in his hat. That's a pretty good cross-section of testimony.--John Foxe (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the refs, Foxe. FYI, Storm, even this [1] FARMS article by editor Daniel Peterson, mentions the quotes on looking in a hat. However, these quotes don't say anything about treasure seeking, and overwhelmingly refer to translation, so I am changing the main body text to read: "Smith's contemporaries describe his process for using seer stones as placing the stone in a white stovepipe hat, putting his face over the hat to block the light, and then "seeing" the information in the reflections of the stone." And adding the Peterson reference to 7 --Adlib24 (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your interest in connecting Smith's treasure hunting with his use of seer stones in a hat. I've now added those references.--John Foxe (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't make a big deal out of this, because I think you have you have humored me quite well, but if those are your refs, Foxe, then I think you are over-selling Smith as a treasure hunter. The Harris quote shows how Smith used the stone to find something (not treasure), and the other quote is more sarcastic, sensational quip, than eye-witness account. I guess part of my problem is I don't understand why you are so committed to selling Smith as a treasure hunter, so Smith was paid to dig for a mine by Stoal...big deal. Sounds a lot less crazy than what a lot of Goldrush people did when the traveled cross country on the hope of finding gold. Why are a few of Smith's odd jobs such a major part of the narrative on the Golden Plates? In any case, though in my opinion based on the refs I have Smith was a minor not a major participant in treasure hunting, I hope the much improved refs tone down some of the vandalism, and teaches people a little more about Smith's use of seer stones. --Adlib24 (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that vandals here do much reading. Swinging from trees and eating bananas is a more likely pastime. But we can always hope I'm wrong and that education does indeed produce a more docile race of simians.--John Foxe (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Headline text

This page is more of an advertisement than an article. It is one sided and only tells of Smith's dealing within his church, and bares no mention of the negative aspects of his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtf612 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Adherents of Latter Day Saint movements would never consider this article an advertisement, and it is certainly not the side of the story that they would tell if given the chance. When I first read the article, I considered it overly negative (see posts above). I'm not sure my opinion has changed much, but after seeing some of the even crazier vandalism that has gone on, I am content that the article is approaching the point where those with a negative view of Smith will think the text is too kind, and those with a positive view of Smith think it is too harsh. Maybe that's about right...Maybe - Adlib24 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Mtf612 was referring specifically to the leading summary paragraphs, not to the article in its entirety. A few new edits have apparently been addressing this, but still need some work because right now it doesn't flow very well. --...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 08:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

With all respect, B, I don't like to see biographical articles where the lede becomes a football. The article is about Joseph Smith, not believers, not "critics." Besides, it's simplistic and crass to say that non-believers argue Smith's interest in starting a new religion was for "money, women, and power." How about mental instability or demon possession or a joke that took on a life of its own? --John Foxe (talk · contribs)

I appreciate the respect, and also appreciate that you removed that line; it was bothering me but I didn't want to remove it since it stated a valid fact relevant to Joseph Smith. You were right in correcting it and the leading paragraphs have once again made a small improvement. Thanks. --...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 03:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wordle of article

For your amusement, and perhaps as a relevant general observation of the article: a word cloud from the JSJr article's text: Wordle: Wikipedia: Joseph Smith

I was going to post the actual picture...but didn't want to go through the trouble of uploading and everyting =P

--...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 02:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Point of View

As a Mormon, I find this page very biased and argumentative in tone. I am just fine including factual parts of Joseph Smith's life that are controversial or negative, but the tone of this article is judgemental and biased. For example, look at the difference between this page and the article on Muhammad Muhammad. It is strikingly different in tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgardunia (talk • contribs) 15:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As a non-Mormon, I find this page extremely biased and adulative in tone. My one efforts of including a few of the many prominent criticisms of this man was quickly eradicated, leaving the tone of this article judgemental and biased. Just because Muhammad's page is watched over by an equally zealous army of fans does not excuse the whitewashing of this article's subject. -- Marcika (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As a non-Mormon (in fact, a never-been-a-Mormon) and no fan of Joseph Smith, I was the one who "eradicated" your miscellaneous additions because the information in them is already covered in the article. The fact that Bgardunia believes the article too anti-Mormon and you believe the article too pro-Mormon means we're probably approaching NPOV here. But if you find the article biased, then please cite specific examples of that bias.--John Foxe (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me point out a difference between Joseph Smith and Muhammad: In the case of Muhammad (Jesus too), essentially all the source material that has survived about him is scriptural in nature and has passed through a period of oral history. Everything else has been destroyed, or was never recorded because the people were illiterate. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, lived in a world of much higher literacy where lots of people recorded things in their journals or have provided memoirs or letters in periodicals, journalists have been able to interview most of the main people involved other than Smith himself, and there are even pre-publication manuscripts of Smith's main works. So there is just a lot more breadth of material to work with, and his contemporaries had a lot of different opinions. Had Muhammad lived in the 1800s, I'm sure his article would look a lot different. COGDEN 01:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as POV goes, consider: I believe it to be universally accepted that people who knew Joseph Smith believed him to either be a fraud & scam artist of terrible infamy or a prophet of God. That's an extreme range. Few fell in the middle, and thus few historical accounts come across as objective. It is reasonable to conclude from this fact that whatever Smith did, and whoever he was, caused both reactions. Therefore, to properly and accurately portray Joseph Smith, an article must have enough and adequate examples of his actions and life so that a reader understands why both parties felt the way they did. If a person reads an article about Joseph Smith and does not understand both sides, then that article is deficient since it does not explain the reality of the universally accepted fact that Joseph Smith caused both reactions.

As I read this article, I can understand why people felt he was a charlatan, but I have a hard time understanding why people would think he was a prophet. So he lived in various places, was arrested, published a religious book, proclaimed new and different religious doctrines, founded a city, ran for president, was murdered, etc.--so what? Those things do not explain why anyone would think him to be a prophet. Therefore, something is lacking. A person's believe in Smith as a prophet is based more on his effects on them than dates and places. Many believed they witnessed him perform miracles, such as dozens of healings when the Mormons arrived in the area that would become Nauvoo. Similarly, those with him in Zion's Camp claimed he performed miracles then, regardless of the mission's ineffectiveness at achieving its initial aims. Regardless of whether such miracles happened (and it is not the place of an encyclopedia to demonstrate or claim whether miracles did or did not occur, since they--perhaps by their very nature--are notoriously difficult to prove), it is a fact that his followers believed they had happened, and that fact is worthy of mention since it has much to do with their belief and devotion, and thus an understanding of Joseph Smith. 66.249.100.228 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that assertion is demonstrated by the sources. There's no index entry in Bushman for "miracles," although there are two page references under Joseph Smith, Jr. for "healings by." One is the casting out of a demon from Newel Knight in 1830 (115), and the other is the healing of a woman's arm, noted by Ezra Booth, who then shortly after apostatized because he believed "Mormonism's signal weakness was Joseph Smith. He held too much power." (169) During the malaria epidemic in Nauvoo, Wilford Woodruff claimed Smith's blessings had produced successful healings; but the death toll continued to rise, and Smith himself lost a brother and a son.--John Foxe (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If memory serves, the malaria healings was an interesting situation. Joseph began to heal people, but then was constrained by the Spirit to stop, which obviously was a stressful event. It has been years since I read about that, but as I recall the book was called "More Precious Than Rubies". Healing is viewed as sacred and more often than not is seldom shared with others. Initially, Jesus would ask those healed to keep their silence about the healing. Attempting to draw conclusions by death tolls is viable effective historical review, but that seldom reveals an accurate spiritual history. Afterall, Jesus was almost entirely missed in ancient history and people continued to die during his period. Ezra Boothe provides an viewpoint where he acknowledges Smith's power as a healer, but still condemns him for have too much political power. The one view does not negate the other since both could very easily be correct.

I do think the Anon has a valid point in that the articles discusses little of the more positive sides of Smith. --^StormRider 12:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My point (which I unfortunately failed to clarify) was that while Smith was undoubtedly a charismatic figure, there is little evidence that "the belief and devotion" of his early followers arose from miracle working.--John Foxe (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think I would agree with that position. But in that context, I am not sure many people gain/retain followers. If Jesus is used as an example, it is an evil generation that seeks for a sign. I think LDS extrapolate that position to all seeking for a miraculous sign is not a path of righteous endeavor. Jesus did not gain his followers strictly by showing signs of miracles, etc. I don't recall every reading a text that alluded to the followers of Joseph Smith seeking after him because he performed "miracles". That being said, I separate the Book of Mormon and his translation of an ancient record stands apart from that statement (but we also cover it in the article); Smith's followers did believe in him because of what they believed about the Book of Mormon and they did view that as a miracle. --^StormRider 14:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that. The central reason why people followed Joseph Smith during the early Mormon era was the Book of Mormon and the story of the golden plates. That was miraculous in a sense, but then again, people in that era were used to hearing about miracles and visions. They saw miracles everwhere, and were a lot less jaded about claims of the supernatural than we modern readers are. The mere fact that miracles and visions were ascribed to Joseph Smith is not in itself enough to explain his following. It was the fact that there was a tangible book that people could read, and if they believed the book was genuine, then obviously, so was Smith. Still, there were many who believed the book was genuine, but eventually came to view him as a fallen prophet. That includes probably the majority of Smith's closest followers. COGDEN 01:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a very interesting discussion to sit back and read, and my hat is off to the observations. My own take is that the historical record suggests the B of M was the main point of inspiration and intrigue for those outside the HQ sphere, being facilitated by missionaries, but as soon as folks journeyed to the central gathering points, it was the personal charisma of JSJr. that held them in the fold. I would agree that the miracles issue is based on the retelling of the Palmyra story, and all the Restoration signified to the newly faithful, and not on followers seeking JSJr's hand in turning water into Welch's. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Miracles" is only an example of why someone might have believed Smith to be a prophet, or rather, be seen as evidence supporting the belief. (For those who believe the BoM account, it's publication would be considered a miracle.) The fundamental point is not miracles themselves, but does the article adequately capture what is was that caused people to believe Smith was a prophet and then supported them in that belief? Given the history of the Mormons, there clearly must have been reasons for such convictions, and given the numerous personal fallings-out with Smith, it seems his charisma is an insufficient explanation. My conclusion is that personal accounts, albeit they may be fantastical, are still an accurate reflection of the effect Smith had on people and thus give insight into who he must have been. It is generally not preferred to include such accounts because people's feelings cannot be supported with additional external references, and with Smith, all such personal accounts appear to be polarized for or against him, which would seem to diminish credibility. For these reasons it seems that such accounts are not included in this article. Generally, that would be a good move, but with situations like this one, it may not be the best decision. 66.249.100.228 (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at another, but very obscure, founder of a religion, Frank Sandford. There's a similar charisma, similar "fallings out." What's missing is a well-timed martyrdom. Mormonism was about to implode in 1844, and an Illinois mob saved it.--John Foxe (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

So we have: miracles, charisma, The Book of Mormon, and then martyrdom so far in this discussion. Martyrdom didn't cause people to follow Joseph Smith during his life, obviously, so that narrows it down to the first three. Of course, being a Mormon and a former missionary for the LDS church I can tell you from first hand experience that all these things pale in comparison to (when talking about reasons why people convert and why Joseph's story is significant to them) the converting power of the Spirit of God (The witness from the Holy Ghost) which was sent from God to witness unto all men the truth (dependant on their hearts being right enough before God). Yes, all truly converted Mormons know this but apparently have not mentioned it here yet. Ask any one of them. This is the real influence of Joseph Smith and the cause for his following. This should be included in the article along with a reference or quotation to a part of the Book of Mormon: MORONI 3:5-10 which is basically an invitation to find out by direct communication (prayer) with God whether the Book of Mormon is a true book of scripture. The same conversions happen now as they did back then.

Ok now after reading what I just wrote I have to say that this CAN *SOUND* like bigotry, but trust me it isn't. This is all relevant discussion that should be part of the article. A reader not knowing beforehand who Joseph Smith is would be lost without this important info.

By the way, please forgive the lack of writing skills including grammar and sentence structure. I'm doing my best here.

The original post to this discussion was "I find this page very biased and argumentative in tone" and I have to agree. There is no talk of 'Joseph Smith did more for the salvation of mankind than any man who ever walked the earth save Jesus Christ'. This tone is never touched upon in the article but the opposite tone does come through quite a bit: "...participated in a craze for treasure hunting" which biasly leads the reader to believe that Smith was a person caught up with some fascination of precious metals/treasure and thereby fabricated the concept of the Golden Plates. Indeed, the article takes the classic argumentitive approach that is taught in all college english persuasive writing courses: show a little bit (not all) of the opposition's perspective to gain more credulity and then smash it point by point with examples supporting your own point of view. This is routinely done in classes regardless of the truth of the position. So yes this article is highly biased towards the non-mormon/anti-mormon point of view.

To reiterate, the tone of this article currently goes as follows: 'Smith was a man who did this thing and that thing and thereby had a following of people. He was a man fascinated with treasure and thereby incorporated golden plates into his story to gain power. He was a domineering man who used his popular power to throw down his adversaries and submit them to his will and to gain his carnal desires.' So the tone currently goes: normal man, normal man, evil man. A true NPOV article would include the tone: great man and a true prophet of God. Zz55 (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Zz55

There's nothing POV about saying that in his youth Joseph Smith searched for buried treasure using seer stones. The evidence is cited in the article. On the other hand, declaring that anyone (whether Joseph Smith or Frank Sandford) was a "great man" and "a true prophet of God" simply because he had a popular following in his lifetime is a claim not susceptible to proof and therefore classic POV.--John Foxe (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Name Usage

There is a switch between using Smith and Joseph to refer to Joseph Smith, I assume. To someone like me, I am unable to tell if those are two seperate people, with no knowledge on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.231.149 (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Mormons customarily refer to Joseph Smith as "Joseph" or "The Prophet." Even Fawn Brodie, in the skeptical No Man Knows My History, often called Smith "Joseph."--John Foxe (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I make edits to these articles, I use Smith unless there is some reference to another Smith (such as his wife Emma) in the same context. I don't know if there is a guideline on that, but it seems less encyclopedic to me to use first names except to avoid confusion. For example, it would seem strange, in the Barack Obama article to refer to "Barack", or to refer to "Carl" in the Carl Sagan article.COGDEN 17:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you're right, COGDEN. I've changed "Joseph" to "Smith" except where the change would lead to confusion.--John Foxe (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not by any means an unbiased article

Just a random example: "Joseph Smith’s First Vision marked the beginning of the Restoration of Jesus Christ’s Church to the earth. In subsequent years, Christ restored His priesthood and reorganized His Church..."

There are those of us who don't think Christ did anything of the kind. HairyDan (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just temporary Mormon POV.--John Foxe (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, gee, thanks HairyDan. If you hadn't told me that, I would have never guessed that other people would dispute Joseph Smith restoring the church of Jesus Christ to the earth.

Second, does anyone know Wiki policy regarding wording a sentence as "Joseph Smith's First Vision marked . . . " and "Mormons believe that Joseph Smiths first vision . . ." I know that the second is more accurate as far as not introducing a POV goes, but isn't it somewhat cumbersome to be repeating this sentiment every seven words or so. Is it enough to just say something at the first of the article like "The reality of the First Vision, etc. are all Mormon beliefs and not everyone believes that they happened." Or, is it really necessary to cater to every donk thagets offfended because a writer chose to say "Joseph Smith . . ." and not "Mormons believe Joseph Smith . . ." Can anyone explain the Wikipedia policy to me? It is a legitimate question, even though I'm irritated by the comment from the last writer.

To give an example, I would not do that to the page on Mohammed -- changing every sentence containing "Mohammed did . . . such-and-such" to "Muslims believe Mohammed did . . . such-and-such". It should be obvious. Duh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.62.127.210 (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

POV line

Text in the 'Revealed to Smith' section describes Smiths dealings with the editor of the Whig paper 'The Warsaw Signal', Thomas C. Sharp using POV language - "arrogantly and unwisely offended".

Remove this? It could be replaced by the ref'ed quote so that the reader can make their own judgements. UnexpectedBanana (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added more substance to the citation for this statement. Whether coming from a Mormon or non-Mormon perspective, it would be hard to argue that in this case Smith did anything but make a serious mistake.--John Foxe (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Masonic signal of distress

Freemasonry Exposed, p. 76, Confessions of John D. Lee, reprint of 1880 ed., p. 153, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 618, Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 585, Mormonism and Masonry, by E. Cecil McGavin, page 17 and Life of Heber C. Kimball, p. 26. All these say the Smith gave the Masonic signal of distress, why is this not included in the acount of his death? (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.6.167 (talk)

Joseph's use of "seer stones" for treasure hunting.

I've updated the article to include a sentence that reflects the fact that most Mormon apologists dispute the historical accuracy of Joseph Smith using "seer stones" to search for buried treasure -- a point given an enormous level of importance in the original article, even though it should probably be a minor point warranting, at most, a couple of sentences. The link provided in the page explains in depth the problems that most Mormon scholars would have with these historical accounts -- lack of internal consistency and the fact that they were made by third parties about what someone supposedly told them about Smith and his use of seer stones. So, for balance, I've included a new sentence reflecting scholar skepticism.

On a deeper note, I'm not sure why the use or non-use of seer stones is given so much space (six sentences, by my count) when it really is a minor point to the overall article. I'm sure that a sentence going something like, "Smith was also reported to have extensively used seer stones for treasure hunting --references--, although the accuracy of these reports is disputed by Mormon scholars" --references-- would convey the idea quite nicely. Do we really need six sentences to get this idea across, including an in depth description of the alleged stone as being chocolate colored? If not, I propose to move this information to a footnote or something. It doesn't seem like it's adding that much to the article to me -- too much information for an encyclopedia article.

Any other thoughts on this idea? If needed, perhaps we can put it to a vote. Jjc16 (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentences about Smith's use of seer stones are largely based on Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling, and Bushman is a Mormon in good standing. Not all the evidence is hearsay. Not a single non-Mormon scholar disputes it. Most Mormon scholars accept it as well. Only Mormon apologists try to explain it away.--John Foxe (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Jjc16, I don't think there really is any scholarly dispute (LDS or otherwise) that Joseph used seer stones. The dispute comes from what he used them for and when. There is significant discussion on the Urim and Thummim and the seer stones Joseph used and when. What makes the discussion difficult is as you say, most of the comments are third party because Joseph said very little about either. Regardless, Joseph used them early and later in his life.

What I do think is a valid point is balance in the article. I agree that we do not need to cover it so heavily, but this is where consensus comes to play and editors should work together to improve the article if this specific area needs improving at all. You started on a specific proposal above, can you provide an actual proposal for the paragraph/section to discuss here? ^StormRider

If a man says an angel appeared to him and provided golden plates which he translated while looking at a stone in a hat, then it would be dishonest not to mention (in detail) the fact that the same man had previously been paid to search for buried treasure while looking at a stone in a hat.

As for balance, I think the last time someone tried to make serious alterations to this section, it was an editor who wanted to add dollops of Persuitte, which one or the other of us headed off at the pass. In my opinion, we've got a good balance right now.--John Foxe (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought my edit made it clear that scholarship does not support the conclusion that Smith did not use seer stones. I really haven't looked at the article as a whole very closely in long time. To me context is everything and in the scheme of things the seer stones are not the major event of his life as a young man or as a leader of the LDS movement. The challenge that you allude to is covering all the bases without leaving the titillating stuff out (and I do think it should be there). It is always difficult to be concise and complete, but alas that is the challenge of writers. I don't think we are on different pages, but I am willing to discuss the concept with a new editor. Does this make sense? --^StormRider 02:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I always appreciate comments from knowledgeable people like yourself. For folks with ideological axes to grind—whether apologists or anti-Mormons—I recommend blogging.--John Foxe (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I find that I share that same piece of advice with people; however, I am not sure how many people are willing to take me up on the advice. Some can be pacified with change of tone and others it is show me the reference. Regardless of position that is one that will often be sufficient to silence the redundancy of the conversation.

Curious, I think you have read enough of Quinn. Have you read any of his views on homosexuality and the early years of the movement? I had a recent conversation with someone and I feel like Quinn is out there by his lonesome and thus should be considered fringe in that one area. Do you have any thougths? I think it complicates the conversation because we are put in the position of saying this is fringe, but this is not. Curious. --^StormRider 03:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

StormRider, I like the comment that you said about the seer stones being a minor point in the life of Joseph Smith. This was the first point that I was trying to make with my last talk page post. The second point that I was trying to make (sorry if it didn't come through) was that the use of seer stones by Joseph Smith for treasure hunting is disputed. I don't think anyone disputes the use of seer stones by him, Mormon or non-Mormon.

So, I think the revision of the article should take one of two courses. Either a) we break off the seer stone text into a separate section (if we think its important enough to keep in the larger scope of the article) or b) we reduce the information down to perhaps one or at most two sentences that convey the same information. Something similar to the following:

--> Move to another section? Meanwhile as a young boy Smith participated in a "craze for treasure hunting."[5] Beginning as a youth in the early 1820s, Smith was paid to act as a "seer," using seer stones in mostly unsuccessful attempts to locate lost items and buried treasure. [6] Smith's contemporaries describe Smith's procedure for using seer stones to hunt for treasure as placing the stone in a white stovepipe hat, putting his face over the hat to block the light, and then "seeing" the information in the reflections of the stone.[7] His preferred stone, which some said he also used later to translate the golden plates, was chocolate-colored and about the size of an egg, found in a deep well he helped dig for one of his neighbors.[8]

During this period Smith said he experienced a visitation from an angel named Moroni[9] who directed him to a long-buried book, inscribed on golden plates, which contained a record of God's dealings with ancient Israelite inhabitants of the Americas. This record, along with other artifacts (including a breastplate and "seer stones" that Smith referred to as the Urim and Thummim), was buried in a hill near his home. On September 22, 1827, Smith said that after four years of waiting and preparation, the angel allowed him to take possession of the plates and other artifacts. Almost immediately thereafter, Smith recounts that local people tried to discover where the plates were hidden.[10]

Smith claims to have translated these plates of Gold by means of the Urim and Thummim seer stones. Third party accounts also claim that Smith used other seer stones for other activities, including placing a chocolate colored stone in the bottom of a stovepipe hat to look for a silver mine (insert references). However, the historical accuracy of the third party claims is disputed by some scholars (insert my reference).

--> Move to another section? Smith left his family farm in October 1825 and was hired by Josiah Stowel, of nearby Chenango county, to search for a Spanish silver mine by gazing at his seer stone.[11] In March 1826, as a result of his using his seer stone to search for the silver mine, Smith was charged with being a "disorderly person and an impostor" by a court in nearby Bainbridge.[12]

--> Move to another section Smith also met Emma Hale during this period and married her on January 18, 1827. Emma eventually gave birth to seven children, three of whom died shortly after birth. The Smiths also adopted twins.[13] (See Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.)

As I explained earlier, if we want to put more stuff in about seer stones (arguably an interesting part of Smith's life) then we should make a separate section. The changes I've introduced are for a very condensed edit of the Golden Plates section, leaving out a lot of the seer stone information. If we still want to include it, move it to another section!

What does everyone else think? Jjc16 (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can really surgically separate out the part about seer stones in his early life. Seer stones were his job, his hobby, and later, part of his religion. If it weren't for the seer stones, he'd never have met his wife, he never would have found the plates, and he never would have made enemies in Palmyra. COGDEN 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "surgically separate out" the parts of Jospeh Smith's life that had to do with seer stones. My original contention was that I feel they are not that important to the overall story. So, either we a) reduce the comments on seer stones in the Golden Plates down to a more appropriate couple of sentences (including a statement about both the third party stories of Smith's use of seer stones for treasure hunting and the scholarly doubts about the authenticity of those claims) or b) we create a new section titled "Seer stones" (if the information that he had a "chocolate" colored seer stone and a "white" stovepipe hat really is so important that it just can't be left out of a general article).

I'm not trying to separate anything out with this, as you put it, but rather trying to clean up the article. If we want to go into great depths about every little aspect of Smith's life, fine, lets do that. We can put tons and tons more stuff in this article. However, if we want to just stick to the main points, lets reduce the seer stone section down to something like what I suggested. Jjc16 (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentences on Joseph Smith's use of seer stones are of major importance to the preservation of an NPOV article about him. As I said above, if a man says an angel appeared to him and provided golden plates which he translated while looking at a stone in a hat, then it's dishonest not to mention (in detail) the fact that the same man had previously been paid to search for buried treasure while looking at a stone in a hat. Yes, the seer stone business is discreditable both to the character of Joseph Smith and to the origins of the LDS Church, but there's no reason to downplay or sanitize it on that account.--John Foxe (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the sake of conversation, Joseph Smith never said he used the stones for translation; he only stated that he used the Urim and Thummim. Others said Joseph, at times, used the stone in the hat. The only problem for me is any language that leads readers to assume that it was the only method of translation. As COgden has made clear in the past, Smith is known to have used the Urim and Thummim, the seer stones, and nothing at all during the translation process. This should be what is highlighted and not the hat and stone trick. --^StormRider 19:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

All the following said they saw Smith translate using a stone in his hat: Emma Hale Smith, Isaac Hale, Michael Morse, Martin Harris, Joseph Knight, Sr., David Whitmer, Elizabeth Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery. Call it a "seer stone" or "Urim and Thummim" (the terms seem to have been used interchangeably), producing the Book of Mormon, at least, was a matter of translating via "the hat and stone trick."--John Foxe (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, did anyone actually READ the reference that I put in? As I said, it is a scholaraly reference disputing the accounts that Joseph Smith used seer stones for purposes other than translation of the plates. It chalks up most of the other accounts quite convincingly (at least to me) to hearsay and third party accounts. Second, if we want to mention that Smith used stones for treasure hunting (despite the evidence that many of these accounts aren't reliable), then fine. But, we should either a) condense the material down to something akin to what I originally wrote or b) separate it into its own section entitles "Use of Seer Stones" or something. And, if it gets its own section, we can go into great depth about how Smith used a chocolate (or raspberry or marmalade) colored stone in a hat for treasure hunting for X and Y. We can also put in statement about how these accounts (mostly third party) are disputed by the source I listed.

The only problem with the article as it stands now is that there is no balance suggesting that anyone disputes the use of stones by Smith for treasure hunting. As you said before, nobody, Mormon or not, disputes the use of stones by Smith in general. They only dispute WHAT he used them for. Jjc16 (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Bushman says: "For a time Joseph used a stone to help people find lost property and other hidden things, and his reputation reached Stowell. Later, after Joseph was arrested for his activities, Stowell testified in court that while still in Palmyra, the 'prisoner looked through the stone and described Josiah Stowell's house and out houses' correctly.'" (49)

Court records are not hearsay. Bushman is a believing Mormon. His biography is the most complete available. Your reference is not "scholarly" in any normal meaning of that term, that is, material appearing in a peer-reviewed professional journal. It's Mormon apologetics. To trump Bushman, you'll need scholarship.--John Foxe (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for pointing out what Bushman said, in case I'd missed the 50 or so other quotes by him on the page. I didn't think I was disputing that Bushman and others said that Smith used the stones for treasure hunting. And, I'm happy to hear that Bushman is an active Mormon -- not that I'm sure what that has to do with how good or bad his research is.

A word about peer review: Did Bushman compile his biography from a list of peer reviewed articles in a journal? If not, then there is a very good chance that his work is not peer reviewed. Even if it is peer reviewed, that does not exclude the inclusion of other, peer reviewed material that reaches a different viewpoint. I work as a researcher, and I see two peer reviewed articles all of the time that reach differing conclusions. When in doubt about which one is right, I include both of them in the papers that I write.

I also liked your comment about research presented on the BYU website being "Mormon apologetics" and not "peer reviewed". Sorry to be rude, but that is a really stupid comment on your part. I'm pretty sure that BYU as a University would not put something that a) they didn't look at (through some kind of peer review process) and b) put something up that they wouldn't back up 100% if challenged. BYU is a university -- owned by the Mormon church -- but a university nonetheless. I'm pretty sure that their research can be trusted -- even if it is "apologetics" as you call it. Just because something is defending a viewpoint doesn't mean that it's wrong or right. In one way or another, every document more advanced than the phone book presents some kind of world view. I think that something from this source deserves at least as much credit as something from Bushman. Further, I think it's offensive, unprofessional, and wrong for you to dismiss this research so lightly. Finally, unless I hear a consensus otherwise against it, I'm going to either a) insert the research or b) edit out the comments about treasure hunting as being unverifiable. If you want to start a revert war, then fine. This research deserves to be in the article.

Jjc16 (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Threatening edit wars and calling other people's comments "stupid" violate Wikipedia policies and are, at best, unlikely to win allies here.

BYU's website is an excellent source for determining LDS positions, but it's unsuitable as an NPOV source on which to base an encyclopedia article about Joseph Smith, the founder of Church. I'd have no problem with a footnote that began "The LDS church argues that...." and concludes with a citation to the BYU website. But Wikipedia articles themselves need to be based on peer-reviewed scholarship whenever possible. Fortunately, many articles and books from various perspectives have been written about Smith through the years. The books of Fawn Brodie and Richard Bushman, for instance, published by Alfred A. Knopf sixty years apart, were both critiqued by scholars before being published because the publisher had both a financial and intellectual investment in their success. Articles in journals such as the Journal of Mormon History, Dialogue, and Sunstone Magazine are also peer-reviewed by people from varied viewpoints before they appear in print. In the case of the BYU website, however, authors are expected to present the position of the LDS Church—which they should: the Church is paying their salaries. (Those who feel overly constrained by the hand of the Church go the way of D. Michael Quinn.)

I also edit articles about fundamentalist Christianity and am quite familiar with BJU Press, the press of Bob Jones University, the largest press in South Carolina. If the viewpoint of BYU is to be trusted simply because it's a university then why not that of BJU?--John Foxe (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read my last entry carefully, I said if YOU want to start an edit war over me putting in the citation (which I am going to do unless consensus opposes it), then you are welcome to. I haven't heard from anyone else besides you that I shouldn't, so I'm going to wait a few more days to see, and then I am going to reinsert it. As for calling your opinion stupid, I felt like I had to call a spade a spade there. Summarily dismissing an entire university full of talented researchers and intelligent people just because they are paid by the Mormon church is, quite frankly, stupid. I've personally known many of the professors at BYU (no I didn't go there) and can vouch for the academic integrity of all those that I've met and with whom I've done research. Further, I think that it's an offense to them and to all BYU professors to suggest otherwise.

I have no problem inserting citations from Bob Jones University, as long as their research is good. Unlike you, I really don't care who pays the bills. I've been to several conferences where the speaker's first Power Point slides was one revealing all of their conflicts of interest -- who was paying their bills. As long as those are known and out in the open, then their research can be judged on its own merits. Jjc16 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia article, the perspective is supposed to be WP:NPOV. We aren't at a conference where possible conflicts of interest can be revealed through PowerPoints. The reader can't tell who's paying the bills. Bob Jones III once called Mormonism a "cult." Who should decide whether his "research is good"? For whom do you do research?--John Foxe (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In regard to the impartiality of the BYU faculty, I recall Mark Twain's take on the testimony of the Eight Witnesses, "I couldn't feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified."Hi540 (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the theory that Smith didn't use Seer stones except to translate the Book of Mormon is a fringe theory. It is outside the mainstream of scholarship, rejected by most Mormon and non-Mormon scholars, and the normal FRINGE rules should apply. COGDEN 20:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Focusing on the article...the problem at this time is the article only mentions the Urim and Thummim in passing and does not allude to it being used during the translation process. In fact, it places the statement between two statements (going back in time for the second event) to discuss seer stones. The seems strange in that Smith only talked about the Urim and Thummim for translation of the Gold Plates. This topic can be better covered; it is not a balanced dicussion currently. --^StormRider 20:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As Quinn has written, "there was no reference to the Urim and Thummim in the headings of the Book of Commandments (1833) or in the headings of the only editions of the Doctrine and Covenants prepared during Smith's life." The substitution, says Quinn, is evidence that "by 1829 Joseph Smith used biblical terminology to mainstream an instrument and practice of folk magic."(175)--John Foxe (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

John--

And who are you (or I) to decide that this research ISN'T good? The proper thing to do is to put it into the article. If BJU had claimed that Mormonism is a cult AND produced actual research giving reasons why they were a cult and the research seemed credible, then why not? At the same time, I might throw in a few quotes disputing the legitimacy of their research, if such quotes exist. If the quotes don't exist, then no. But, in any case, as editors, it is not our job to decide which research is good and which isn't -- only to provide such research to the public. I don't think anyone here has an a priori reason why we should reject the research from BYU -- other than the rather specious reason that it was "paid for by the Mormon church". So what? Like I said, I've worked personally with several good professors who graduated from and did research at BYU. I think they, and all of the other professors I know at that university, would be offended by the challenge to their academic integrity that this line of thinking implies.

Furthermore, the professors at BYU can't find reasons to doubt the veracity of the statements about Smith's treasure hunting if none existed. If you read the article carefully, the BYU professors never "pull rank" and point to revelation or something silly like that. They systematically go through the different accounts that deal with this situation and, one by one, raise questions about the accounts that have been recorded. It's a valid critical approach to any historical topic, and it is one that deserves to be included in this article for balance. Jjc16 (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We're doing an encyclopedia article here not a historiographical piece filled with warring quotations. The question to be answered is whether the BYU article is the sort of peer-reviewed research that is acceptable to introduce here. The answer is no, except perhaps in a footnote to illustrate the current position of the Mormon church. As COGDEN has written, the thesis of the piece is "outside the mainstream of scholarship, rejected by most Mormon and non-Mormon scholars." If the same BYU professors had recently published the same article in a peer-reviewed journal, say the Journal of Mormon History, that would be a different story.--John Foxe (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

John, you and I both know that Quinn's are seldom mainstream and depending on the topic is considered fringe at best in some of his positions. My position is that we can improve on the section. It seems strange that the LDS Church's position would not be stated first, just as with all religious topics. I am not aware of any other religious topic where we start and end with the historical position. --^StormRider 16:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Quinn's views are sometimes over the top. But not here. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever used the term Urim and Thummim when he was translating the BoM. In my opinion, U&T is simply a euphemism that he thought sounded more biblical to those beyond his original circle who practiced folk magic. Of course, I won't say the latter in the article; and for your part, you shouldn't try to insert a term that's both problematic and anachronistic.--John Foxe (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

John, you haven't presented even one convincing argument to me as to why this quotation shouldn't be included. You said in your last post that the main thesis of the article was rejected by most scholars, Mormon and non-Mormon. Who are these scholars who reject the main thesis of this page? Do you have some quotations where a large group of scholars goes through this page and systematically refutes the arguments in it? Without something like that, step off with your "systematic rejection" statement about this article. Unless you can produce evidence, then I tend to believe that this main thesis of this article is rejected by YOU. One editor does not make a consensus.

Having said that, I want to hear what other editors have to say. I feel that I am getting too involved in the debate at the moment (mostly because of my irritation about the "reasons" John Foxe keeps giving me about why he doesn't want the quote included) so I would like some third party input. What do other editors/users think? Jjc16 (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason the BYU piece can not be used to support statements in this article (except in a footnote to indicate the current position of the LDS Church) is that it is Mormon apologetics published on behalf of the Church rather than in a peer-reviewed journal and presents a fringe view rejected by mainstream scholars both Mormon and non-Mormon. The burden of proof is on you to discover any scholar, published in a peer-reviewed journal, who argues that Joseph Smith did not use seer stones except to translate the Book of Mormon.--John Foxe (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right about peer review, Foxe, but I'm not convinced that Jjc16's thesis can be supported by the Anderson book review anyway. It wouldn't be the first time I've made a mistake here, but I'd like to see from which sentences in that review she derives the notion that Smith did not use seer stones.Hi540 (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we're talking about any official position of the LDS Church here. I'm not aware of any official position either that (1) Smith didn't use seer stones for treasure hunting, or (2) that Smith didn't use seer stones (other than the stone spectacles, which Smith said were seer stones too) for translating the Book of Mormon. The best-attested evidence, and the scholarly consensus, is that he primarily translated using a single seer stone in a hat. He might have used the stone spectacles for some limited part of the translation, but that is not historically well-attested, and is mainly a matter of faith. Whether mention of that item of faith belongs in this article is a matter of some flexibility, but if it appears, it should be less prominent than the historical consensus view, under WP:UNDUE. Moreover, the views that Smith did not use a seer stone in a hat to translate, or never used such a seer stone for treasure hunting, are WP:FRINGE views, and probably shouldn't appear in a summary section such as this article. At most, such information should appear only in a footnote. And remember, when we are discussing matters of history (as opposed to faith) we aren't talking about fringe theories as judged by the body of Mormon thought--we are talking about fringe theories as judge from within the body of academic thought as a whole. COGDEN 00:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

COgden, I think you may be reaching. I think the more scholarly position about the process of translation is that there is very little known. I would disagree that there is any scholarly consensus on how the tranlsation process took place, but rather there are very limited snipets of information about how the process took place and in those instances, if my memory serves, we have individual perspective regarding a single event of translation. None of those who made comments were in a position to provide blanket comments. Is this not accurate or am I overstating it? --^StormRider 01:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain about how many times Emma Hale Smith, Isaac Hale, Michael Morse, Martin Harris, Joseph Knight, Sr., David Whitmer, Elizabeth Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery saw Joseph Smith translate using a stone in a hat; but it was certainly on several different occasions because they were not simultaneous witnesses.--John Foxe (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Storm, what I'm saying is the historical consensus is that the primary, or at least the best attested, method of translating was using a single stone in a hat. That this is a consensus is verified by the Van Wagoner reference, page 53. I'm not saying that he didn't use other methods as well. Some of the statements do appear to be rather general statements involving a sustained period of time. For example, Emma Smith said that she sat as a scribe and wrote "day after day" while Smith used the single seer stone in the hat. Emma was not the scribe for the entire time, of course, but some of the other scribes agree in their description. David Whitmer described Smith's process of translating and did not limit it to any particular time, and it has indicia that Whitmer spoke to Smith about his process. Same with Martin Harris. in fact, Whitmer specifically stated that Smith did not use the Interpreters when translation occurred in his presence, only using the single chocolate colored stone. Cowdery refers to the "Urim and Thummim", but it is not clear that he is referring to the stone spectacles, or that the spectacles were his primary mode of translating.

Only accounts from the very early translation period (prior to the loss of the 116 pages) clearly involve the Interpreters. Thus, Smith himself and Martin Harris said he used the Interpreters in 1827 to translate some of the characters, but when Harris described the normal process Smith used when Harris acted as scribe, he said that Smith used a single stone. We know that in 1828, Smith said that the Interpreters were taken away. And though he said he got them back at the Autumnal equinox of 1828, there is no other specific record of them being used after that date that I can think of that makes it clear that what is being referenced is the "two stones set in silver bows" rather than a single stone. Moreover, nobody ever said they saw the two-stone spectacles other than Lucy Mack Smith (through a cloth). Like the plates, Smith said the angel commanded him not to show the spectacles to anybody. Thus, there is no reason to expect that anybody would be able to verify that Smith ever used the stone spectacles. I guess it's possible that on occasion Smith put the spectacles in the hat and used them instead of his stone, but there is no corroboration of that after 1828; whereas many people actually saw the chocolate colored stone. COGDEN 23:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) The problem is that none of this is mentioned in the article. Joseph is said to have identified the Urim and Thummim, but their use is not indicated. Worse, under the section entitled Golden Plates the readers see, treasure hunting, seer stone, stovepipe hat, preferred stone to translate. 2nd paragraph, visitation by Moroni in 1827, gold plates and purpose, breastplate, Urim and Thummim hidden in hill. 3rd paragraph, go back to 1825 for Spanish mine, 1826 for trial on using seer stones, 4 paragraph - marriage to Emma. All that under Golden Plates, but very little of it has anything to do with, but we get a huge dose of seer stones.

Proposal: I am not arguing against discussing seer stones, I am proposing that we don't cover the translation process well, Smith's own words are completely excluded from the article on this topic, and we don't really address the section topic of Golden Plates. We can do better, we can be more balanced, and we can include more information. Does this make sense? Just read the article, I know John would choke at this type of writing because it is so poor. Chronological events are confusing interspersed, main topic is ignored, and a plethora of secondary information takes center stage. Does this make sense? --^StormRider 00:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, Storm. I've now put the treasure hunting material before the First Vision. I realize one can argue that decision the other way, but it gave me the opportunity to correct a couple of stylistic infelicities in the process.--John Foxe (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree the material wasn't, and still isn't presented very well. I think there are too many headings. This is supposed to be a summary section, and it ought to be condensed into just one or two paragraphs. There is too much detail, and no sense of proportion. By far, the most significant historical event in his early life was finding the golden plates, which ought to take up most of the text. This event is why he is famous. The First Vision is very important theologically, but almost insignificant historically. It should get one sentence, like "Looking back to his early teens, Smith said he had a theophany." The part in the first section about his background is good, but the "treasure hunting" section is a bit too long (delete all but the first two sentences). It is sufficient to describe Smith's process of translating the Book of Mormon, and just mention that this was the same way he did treasure hunting. In a footnote, there can be something brief about the BofM Interpreters. I don't think his arrest and trial is significant, except maybe as a footnote. COGDEN 22:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I've revised the opening section with COGDEN's suggestions in mind. If I don't hear objections, I'll next take up the First Vision section. (Most of the earlier material is still there in footnotes.)--John Foxe (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've now reversed discussion of the golden plates and First Vision. Again, virtually everything that was in the older version still exists in either text or notes.--John Foxe (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating discussion - I'd never dare to try to improve the main page but if anyone is interested in light relief at this point, here's my take on Urim and Thummim: http://sexualfables.com/the-sorcerers-apprentice.php - Joseph Smith, Herman Melville anyone? When objectivity fails, try something else. Martin Blythe (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

John, I've read the changes to the article by you and Storm; and I agree that it is much better written now, so I'm going to let a lot of my initial criticism drop. I still think that your idea of research published on the BYU website not being academically reviewed before publication is very, very flawed -- but, whatever. I still think that the link to the website probably deserves to be included as a footnote, but I will leave the matter alone for the moment -- mostly because I am unsure how to add footnotes to Wikipedia. Jjc16 (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help with the footnote. Start me off here or write me an e-mail.--John Foxe (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Successor?

70.171.235.197 (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC) I ask you write Brigham Young as successor; footnote "disputed". You can dispute or contest anything, but the Majority of LDS went to Utah at his guidance.[Special:Contributions/70.171.235.197|70.171.235.197]] (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Suppose you were a member of the Community of Christ. Would you accept a statement that suggested that Brigham Young had the sole legitimate claim to succeed Joseph Smith? alanyst ^/talk/ 14:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying Who had "legitimate claim", I heard even one of Joseph Smith's wives claimed to be successor. It does not matter; Brigham Young Was, and Did become successor. This is Not an opinion; it is fact. He moved the church to Utah and establed it there--remember? The Community of Christ was not around until 1872 (try look); this was after Brigham Young's presidency, so it did not matter.70.171.235.197 (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your timeline is accurate, but the issue is/was the choice of Brigham Young accepted by all of the remaining church members and the answer is no. It took several years to choose a leader and during this time several people stated they were the chosen successor. The membership was torn and at first there was no clear prophet. The vast majority of the saints eventually chose to follow Brigham, but a sizable minority followed other individuals and some of those groups, however small, continue to this day. Does this make sense to you? --^StormRider 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

70.171.235.197 (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Maybe. Most US Presidential elections were disputed, for example:we certainly contested Schwarzenegger's "election" in CA (I don't know Anyone who got to vote on it). Even though "disputed", he Is Governator. I'm sorry you're in the C of C; I didn't meant to abrogate your right to an opinion. There is discrepancy and controversy in every faith.70.171.235.197 (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What Storm Rider is saying, who as an editor does not self-identify as CofC by the way, is that even if the LDS of today believe that Brigham Young was the legitimate successor to Joseph Smith, as en encyclopedia we must remain neutral and present all views. It is not clear-cut to historians who exactly was meant to succeed JSjr. The CofC (RLDS), for example, believe that Smith's son was eventually the legitimate successor and they self-identify as being organized in 1830 and reorganized in 1860 - 1872 is only significant due to adding the word Reorganized to their name. The point is that Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

70.171.235.197 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Neutral--Ha! What about the remarks about Smith marrying married women, promising 10 virgins for each convert? These are opinion. Also, the "majority of the minority". This doesn't pan out. 70.171.235.197 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations are given for Smith's marriages to already married women. The talk of ten virgins is indeed speculation, but the article makes it clear that the notion is that of the Nauvoo Expositor.--John Foxe (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

70.171.235.197 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Look up your own article on "Fanny Alger"--it proves by DNA evidence Smith bore no children by anyone but Emma Smith. He constantly declared he had only one wife You contradict yourselves.70.171.235.197 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Marriage and having children by the marriage partner are two different matters. Although both Joseph and Emma did deny his plural marriages, there is no reason to believe either one of them given the plethora of additional evidence available.--John Foxe (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the LDS church acknowledges both

1. that there was a dispute over who was to succeed Joseph Smith
2. that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage

While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obviously believe that Brigham Young was the true successor, a significant minority (most notably, the Community of Christ) disputed and implicitly continues to dispute that. While I highly doubt that JsJr promised ten virgins to each convert, it is informative to know that during his lifetime some people believed that he said that. Here at Wikipedia we just report the facts, we don't interpret them. Just because we post criticism of a topic on Wikipedia doesn't mean that Wikipedia "supports" that criticism, nor does it mean that Wikipedia proclaims that the criticism is fact. Rather, we present the factual existance of the criticism.

On a separate topic, person-at-ip-address-70.171.235.197, I invite you to create a username and password. Comments and edits are generally viewed with more trust when they come from a user that is logged-in and willing to put a pseudo-name to his/her work. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 14:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Assasination?

You also need add that the pepperbox Joseph Smith had at the time he was shot was given to him by the Sheriff. He kept it in his pocket, did not draw it UNTIL Hyrum was shot, and only discharged about half of it into the mob (2-3 shots, depending on gun); hitting no one. No one Else was armed inside the cell. See BYU.org/Archives, History of the Church and lds.org/Ensign/June.70.171.235.197 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 1994 "Martryrdom at Carthage".

The LDS source you've cited for this information is unreliable and incorrect on every count.--John Foxe (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Anon 70.171.235.197, could you please only sign at the end of your entries rather than at the beginning and the end? If you look at every discussion page on wikipedia, you will notice that each editor just signs at the end by using the four tildes ("~") mark. Cheers. --^StormRider 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

'Early Years' could be revised

Hey all.

Just a thought that roughly half of the "Early Years" section seems to focus on the "Craze" (contextual connotation likely meaning fad then, but could be associated with 'crazy' in current context)of treasure-hunting and looking-stones. I understand this being presented, but by its large focus it could mislead one into thinking that the majority of Joseph Smith's early years were spent on these endeavors.

No mention is given to painful leg surgeries which could have cost him the use of his leg. Or the nature of his farming duties. Or the different religious leanings he had during those years. Or his love for the game of stick-pulling. Or the religious divisions within his family. Or his relationship with his older brother Hyrum and his respect for his other siblings. Or the role his Father Joseph Smith Sr. played in Joseph's upbringing?

I am not concerned about the facts presented, just that the fixation on Joseph's apparent interest in treasure hunting leads this article to a pretty darkened and myopic outcome.