Talk:Joseph Smith

Bias in 'Ethics and Behavior'

Since I've now given up on the Alger trilogy, I have just finished reviewing the "Ethics and Behavior' section. In summary it is two paragraphs which point out;

Joseph Smith taught the Word of Wisdom but drank. Joseph Smith taught people to respect the law but 'broke' the law.

Seriously, has anyone read the section as it stands?

Can anyone explain how this is not simply a convenient and biased smear? No mention of his character in being the first to contribute upon learning of a family who lost their home. Or how he worked with (and not above) his followers. How about his faithfulness and loyalty to his brother, Hyrum? Or how about how the morning after being tarred and feathered he showed up to teach a sermon? So Bushman had nothing positive to say about Joseph Smith's character? The very title of the book "Rough Stone Rolling" seems to suggest Joseph Smith was a constantly improving individual despite adversity. No mention in his book of anything good in Joseph Smith's behavior or ethics? How is that conveniently missing?

I suggest removal of the section until it is balanced.

--Canadiandy talk 03:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the whole section needs to go. The only sentences that Canadiandy seems to find problematic are the concluding sentences of each of the two paragraphs.

Smith and other contemporary church leaders did not always follow this counsel.

This teaching perhaps explains why Smith felt justified in directing or permitting Mormon leaders to perform actions contrary to traditional ethical standards or in violation of criminal law.

The second is speculative and should be removed. The first feels like it's just an excuse to get Brodie's word about Smith drinking wine "with relish" into a footnote. The preceding sentences that explain that Smith presented the Word of Wisdom only as a guideline already imply that they did not strictly adhere to it at the time; so the first adds nothing to the prose.

A note to Canadiandy: the section is about the teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr regarding ethics and behavior, not necessarily about his own ethics and behavior. That said, "ethics and behavior" is a rather vague title and it seems odd that these two particular points were brought up in the section and nothing else. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point BFizz. Maybe the heading also needs to be reworded.--Canadiandy talk 06:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The second statement is analytical, not speculative. It is supported mainly by Quinn. It is a prominent historical interpretation, which I don't think should be deleted. One of Quinn's well-reviewed apologetic contributions is to put forward an ethical theory of Smith's behavior. In general, I think it's important to explain why Smith often felt unbound by normal legal and ethical principles, based on a higher theological justification. You could call this his "Celestial" law. It is one of Smith's common themes, upon which he spoke many times. Though clearly, the style and contents of this section can be improved. Maybe the heading could be something like "Ethical and behavioral teachings". COGDEN 06:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

COgden. Did you even read my initial statement? I am not questioning whether it is supported. I am not even asking for any of the items to be deleted permanently. I am asking only for a little balance. Have you found nothing in your all your studies that might suggest Joseph Smith was (or taught by example or principle) even fleetingly ethical or behaved ? If so why are you not contributing in a positive way? In my many months here I don't remember you contributing anything which dignifies Joseph Smith except as a compromise. A little help here would be appreciated.--Canadiandy talk 01:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're asking COgden to do your work. If you want to demonstrate that Joseph Smith was really a nice ethical fellow, why don't you find appropriate references in reliable sources such as Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, etc.? Then we can discuss where that information might fit in the article.--John Foxe (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If COgden is a Mormon (though his contributions do not seem to me to follow that premise I will assume good faith) then the opportunity of honoring our first prophet is not 'my' work, rather it is 'our' work. My deferral in asking for his support is in essence a nod to his deep understanding of the research. It actually looks like you are the one showing disregard to COgden here. My communication was with him, and I trust he is intellectually capable of answering my questions all by himself. --Canadiandy talk 17:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

COgden's perfectly capable of answering for himself, and I deeply respect his knowledge of early Mormonism. But this article's about Joseph Smith, not COgden. You say a section of this article is a "biased smear" against Joseph Smith. Then do your own research in reliable sources to refute the "smear." Bring your findings here, and the whole community can discuss it together, Mormon and non-Mormon.--John Foxe (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe. I agree this article is about Joseph Smith. I expressed concern its treatment is myopic and requested support from COgden. You are the one making an issue out of it. And again, imperatives are poor form. I won't be bullied out of the discussion. It does not belong to you.--Canadiandy talk 19:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You believe COgden's treatment of Smith is myopic, and so, instead of doing your own research, your solution is to go to COgden for assistance because of his "deep understanding"?--John Foxe (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistyped. I meant to type that the article's treatment is myopic. I never meant to attribute the section to COgden. If not for your cynicism I would never have caught it. Thanks.--Canadiandy talk 22:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to dignify attacks on my faith, Canadiandy, but suffice it to say that you profoundly misunderstand me if you think I believe Smith was unethical. Quite the opposite: I think that contrary to the uninformed popular view, Smith was deeply ethical, but his ethics were not the same ethics as yours and mine, or most other people who lived after the turn of the 20th century. Many people who do not understand someone's ethics presume that they have no ethics, which is why 19th century Americans incorrectly and ethnocentrically believed that polygamous Mormon men were simply lechers or predators, and many older writers assumed Smith was a sociopath, and some still do. But enough about my views. I hope you will spend less time questioning the motives of editors, and more time working to improve the article in accordance with Wikipedia policy. COGDEN 00:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this will make you smile or cry, but on a lighter note I thought I'd include it.

Using Wikipedia to Push your Agenda (for Dummies)

Step 1. Find a subject you disagree with and spend years researching anything that is critical of your subject.

Step 2. Identify yourself as neutral and an expert on the subject based on the fact you are not sympathetic with it.

Step 3. Forge all of the critical literature you have read into organized paragraphs.

Step 4. Accuse anyone who opposes your position of having a point of view. This works especially well if you use the TLA (three letter acronym) ‘POV’ over and over.

Step 5. Every now and then make a minor compromise but then follow it up a couple days later with an even more negative attack on your subject.

Step 6. When anyone questions your article defend it by attributing what you wrote to the “experts” you have referenced. Identify them as prominent and peer-reviewed (code words for odd academics who write fan mail to each other).

Step 7. If anyone persists in questioning the balance of your article, throw up a smokescreen by accusing them as having a ‘fringe’ position, or better yet try and throw them off their message by accusing them of not having contributed enough peer-reviewed research. Remember, it doesn’t count as peer-reviewed if the peers are from a sympathetic University or group. That would be a POV problem.

Step 8. If anyone questions fellow cynical contributors, rather than addressing the concern, come to their defense by accusing that questioner of bias.

Step 9. If anyone uses logic that opposes your position, accuse them of breaking Wiki-etiquette somewhere (even if so doing is itself breaking wiki-etiquette). Anything underlined in blue is especially useful because it gives you both the appearance of being courteous (you are just trying to help). And obviously if the link is a Wiki rule you must be in the right because Wikipedia reigns supreme.

Step 10. Filibuster, filibuster, filibuster. Eventually your opponents will tire of this and leave in frustration giving you both the upper hand in the article and the appearance of a senior or controlling editor.

Hope it never happens here.--Canadiandy talk 07:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Done away with horrendous bias in the lead paragraph

I have removed portions of the lead paragraph included only to push a certain Anti-Mormon agenda, I would be thankful if that were not reverted. It seems this article only actually presents, mentions and even gives relevance to information which is critical of Joseph Smith. Having left this page alone for months, I return to find that it has even bigger Anti-LDS tone and bias to it than ever! It is seriously out of order that this should be allowed to happen and I will not stand for it anylonger. Routerone (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with how it reads now. How did I miss the changes? It looks like a lot of cynics are editing without discussion here first. Glad to see you are doing it the right way, Routerone.It may turn back into an edit war and blocking but at least you are playing by the rules even if others aren't. --Canadiandy talk 17:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It was undue negative weight in detail and thus it was written almost from an entirely critical point of view mentioning nothing about his prophethood or positive achievements. It instead accused him of being a "theocrat" and gave heavy weight to "folk magic" and stuff. I am playing by the rules, WP:BOLD I have a right to change the page and improve it. It is them who are reverting without rationale and trying to control the page. I will stand up to this as much as I possibly can! Routerone (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted. I don't see how "He was also a theocrat, politician, city planner, military leader, and polygamist" is biased or anti-Mormon, and the article text (not to mention the sources) supports these labels. Having it in the lede helps the reader understand the various facets of the man beyond simply founding a religion.

Routerone's addition of how adherents view him is reasonable, but redundant since that's already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lede. (Also, the possessive pronoun is "whose", not "who's", which is a contraction of "who is" or "who has".)

The treasure-seeking bit is perhaps the most justifiably omitted from the lede on the basis of undue weight (compared to how much text is devoted to the translation of the Book of Mormon, or the founding of the church), and its implication-by-juxtaposition that the golden plates were just another episode of treasure-seeking. But the mention of the folk religion background in Smith's early years is helpful and doesn't seem to lead the reader to any particular conclusion.

I've been critical of John Foxe's article ownership and efforts to promote his personal views, but I don't like the passive-aggressive behavior coming from Canadiandy and Routerone either. Slow down, talk things over, don't get heated, and see if there's some common ground. alanyst 18:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the aggressive efforts of John Foxe can only be balanced if we take them head on. I would like to sit back but whenever I do something else is sneaked through and we end up taking on an ongoing filibuster for control. I propose we revert back to Routerone's edit (which is just an earlier state). Does anyone have any neutrality issues with the way the Routerone revert read? I propose we act boldly, leave the revert, and then discuss the revert here if there are any problems with bias. --Canadiandy talk 18:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Analyst, I have given some thought to your not seeing how "He was also a theocrat, politician, city planner, military leader, and polygamist" is biased. I completely agree that at first blush the sentence appears unbiased. But much of the problem at the article is not the facts, but how they are organized and manipulated to create a cynical tone. It is not what is said, but what is missing that is the huge problem. Instead of identifying Joseph Smith as a leader loved by his fellow church members, or as a dedicated father, or a religious leader who recorded numerous complex and progressive doctrines, he is excused away as merely some kind of eclectic politician (and don't forget another opportunity to wave the polygamy flag). The deeper I look into this the more apparent it is that there is a great deal of spin and message management going on. All we are asking for is that, as an individual of religious importance to millions of LDS people, the subject of Joseph Smith be afforded a little dignity. I doubt Luther, Moses, or Martin Luther King would be so maligned. And if they are, I would speak out against that too. --Canadiandy talk 23:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Concerns with an editor's behavior should be brought up with that editor on their talk page, or presented with evidence in a user conduct Request for Comment for community input. Tit-for-tat editing or retaliation for perceived infractions is simply battleground behavior, and reflects more poorly on the editor who engages in it than those they are trying to thwart.

The correct type of dignity to afford the subject of Joseph Smith is an honest effort to dispassionately summarize the reliable scholarship and the notable points of view regarding that subject. Efforts to expose the perfidy, or to glorify the memory, or to highlight the hypocrisy, or to praise the character, of the man—these are not honest efforts to make the article encyclopedic, but are improper POV pushing and whether pro or con, they insult the subject and/or reader of the article.

The difficult fact to accept is that the article has to be based largely on academic scholarship, regardless of whether that scholarship as a whole has a skeptical or critical bias. This is hard to swallow for people who expect to see their personal views given more airtime, so to speak, but it's the only realistic way to write an open encyclopedia. A while back I started (and, alas, did little more than start) an essay about different forms of article bias. The main idea was to identify those biases that could (should) be controlled by Wikipedia policy, and those that cannot. Much of what Routerone and Canadiandy have complained about seems to be based on "the POV inherent in the sources used in the article", to quote my nascent essay. To a large degree, if one is unhappy with the general tone or conclusions of scholarship on a particular subject, one is likely to be unhappy with a well-written Wikipedia article on that subject.

Of course, sources can be cherry-picked and carefully manipulated to lead the reader to certain conclusions, and this is a bias that can (should) be countered. It's tough, though, because to do so one must show that the sources are being misrepresented, and this means that one has to argue from the sources. Without it, it comes across as merely complaining that the scholarship doesn't align with your personal point of view. Part of the reason that COgden and John Foxe are such dominant voices here is that they both argue from the sources, which carries a lot of weight (as indeed it should). They may or may not be putting their own interpretation on the sources, but the only way to tell is to check the sources oneself and show how they are being (mis)represented.

To the extent that John Foxe, COgden, B Fizz, Canadiandy, Storm Rider, Routerone, or any other regular here is making an honest effort to reflect the balance of the reliable sources and notable points of view, I support them. To the extent they regard their own personal view of Joseph Smith as the only legitimate or supportable one, and obstruct efforts to include differing points of view or scholarly conclusions, I object to their involvement in the article.

Sorry to expound at length, but I see the mistrust and anger growing and this will become an arbitration-level conflict if editors all around don't start treating each other as colleagues rather than adversaries. I tried to get a high-level discussion going of a vision for this article to help guide discussions and provide a foundation of mutual trust, but only a few regulars participated and that conversation died out. I hope it's not too late, though, for some reconciliation to be made and a working relationship to be re-established, where we acknowledge our differences and continue to debate and discuss but there's an undercurrent of mutual trust that nobody is trying to make the article tell just their side of the story. alanyst 02:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. The issue here is that references are cherry-picked for a negative slant. Then there is the occaision error in a disalignment between reference and article statement. The only way these efforts are to be countered is for concerned editors to put forth the effort to glean other references that broaden, expand the controversial nature of the article. Unless one is willing to put forth the effort there is not a lot of room to complain. When references are found and inserted into the article that is where the contention may develop and that is where ownership may raise its head. At that point things get a little more interesting and there is not a clear path. It becomes solely an event of "consensus" sometimes it looks like majority rule and other times it just looks like who can hang on the longest and overwhelm all opposing views. -^StormRider 06:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You're pretty much right, analyst. Thanks for taking the time. The reality is that John Foxe and COgden are far more versed in the cynical research and so it puts us at a disadvantage in any attempts to balance things out. And yes, we get pretty grumpy and mean-spirited over it. I think things recently got ramped up a bit after I made an appeal to COgden for support in presenting some of the positive elements of Joseph Smith's context. Not sure why that caused such a problem. I applaud your efforts to seek arbitration or a block on the article. As bad as it is, it seems to be only getting worse because we can't keep up to the sheer volume of edits. I'm sorry if I am too involved here, but every time I present an improvement it opens the floodgates of attack from the anti-Mormon contributors, and I refuse to be bullied out of here. Please notice that the last time we had a block, the second it was lifted John Foxe came storming out of the gates with his Fanny Alger issue. Kind of makes reconciliation hard. I'm all for a permanent ban on this article for Myself, Stormrider, Routerone, John Foxe and COgden (and please keep an eye out for sockpuppets should that happen). I think a new crew would bring a much more respectful tone to this article, because I don't think it could get much worse. If that should happen, would you please keep an eye on it. You seem to be the only neutral voice here. --Canadiandy talk 16:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

@Alanyst, I appreciate and agree with your thoughtful analysis above. COGDEN 09:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Live Light edits

Really? I added something that I felt was constructive to the article, and you reverted it because it is "a waste of words." Please, you do NOT own the Joseph Smith, Jr. article. Nobody owns anything on Wikipedia, and your ownership issues are, I feel, getting a little frustrating. You do not seem to allow anyone to write anything that may put Joseph Smith in a positive light, such as his opposition to animal cruelty, which I feel would be a very good thing to add to the "Ethics and behavior" section of his article. Please consider lightening up and allowing others to give their feedback every once in awhile. Thank you. Live Light (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Joseph Smith article is (by Wikipedia standards) overly long. We need to shorten it where possible, one of my goals here. That Smith chose Rigdon as his running mate for his presidential campaign is tangential at best.

There's nothing wrong with the animal cruelty material per se; it just needs to be cited to a reliable source, not an LDS Church publication.--John Foxe (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I will try to find a reliable source. I apologize. Although I do feel that adding the information about Sidney Rigdon as Smith's running mate needs to be there, no matter what. That is very useful information. Anyone doing research on Joseph Smith's political endeavors will want to know that. (For example, I am writing a paper on Smith's presidential campaign and political ideas. If I did not know who he chose as his running mate, Wikipedia would probably be the first place I would check, prior to other confirming sources. But I would be confused if it was not there.) Live Light (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)\

Adding Rigdon to a footnote would be fine. But if you're writing a paper on Smith's presidential campaign and political ideas, you should start with Bushman and work from his references. Wikipedia should just be the place to find out about major sources like Bushman, Brodie, etc. We old guys are always going to prefer authoritative printed sources to on-line encyclopedias.--John Foxe (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The article does not reflect true fact, instead it reflects the Historical interpretation, spin, presentation and opinion of John Foxe. It's so deceptive and ill wrote it is indeed hideous. It's just one big attack on Joseph Smith rather than a meaningful presentation on who he was and what he achieved. Routerone (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith is most known for being a "Prophet!"

It's almost like it's not allowed for the word "Prophet" to be attached to this article in the lead paragraph. It's as if his claim of being a prophet must be censored and denied as much as possible!

Joseph Smith is remembered by all his followers around the world and even those who do not believe for his claim to be a Prophet. This is what makes him the most notable, not POV motivated rubbish like "Theocrat", etc. I think its important this is kept and not "spun" and denied to represent something different. He is known the very most out of all things for being a claimed prophet and if it were not for that nothing else in his life would be even distinctly relevant, his entire legacy and History is built upon that very claim. If you remove that then really his whole life wouldn't matter, because everything he did was based upon his prophethood claims! so how can you possibly deny or remove that from the lead paragraph? It's simply not fair or neutral or even representative if that is not given a distinct mention!

Moreover, articles on individuals such as Muhammed, Isaiah, etc, mention them in the lead paragraph as what their legacy is most remembered for, claims of being prophets. Joseph Smith is no different, stop writing this article to represent him as something he is not and stop trying to re-write History! Routerone (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find he is most remembered as a polygamist.--Charles (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

He was most remembered for being a prophet. His polygamy stemmed from his very legacy and authority of claiming to be a prophet. As does everything else. Him claiming to be a prophet is the keystone factor of his life. Routerone (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Routerone, I reworded the intro to reflect not only that he was "considered" a prophet, but was indeed a capital 'p' Prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement. As an added bonus it make the intro much less wordy.--Canadiandy talk 03:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted. I'm sorry to do so since you've expressed frustration with being reverted, but calling him a prophet in the voice of Wikipedia, even with a capital 'P' to try to denote it as a title rather than an acclamation, still strays too far into non-neutrality. The capitalization approach is too subtle and nonstandard for the casual reader to read it as a neutral term. alanyst 04:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point, analyst. But to most LDS the title is meaningful as a presiding office. It suggests the role of presiding authority. In fact, today, each of the 15 Apostles are recognized as prophets, but only the presiding apostle or 'President' of the church is referred by the identifier as 'The Prophet'. But I also see your point about how the term is not as commonly understood as say the title 'Pope' for example. So how about "...American religious leader, founder, and Prophet (title) of the..."?--Canadiandy talk 05:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadiandy1, it's more about the term in mainstream use (i.e., outside of Mormon culture), and Wikipedia tends to have a bias against proper nouns. I haven't read it carefully yet, but this would be the section: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents. Yes, note there is an entire section on capital letters- that should show you how central it is to Wikipedia. Also, have you seen the previous discussions on use of prophet in the lede here in the talk pages? I remember it has come up, that the consensus was to keep it out of the lede, but I don't remember why or anything. Let me know and I'd be happy to look for it. tedder (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@Canadiandy, the Mormon practice of referring to the current LDS President as "The Prophet" did not really happen until the 20th century. Smith was certainly the Mormon prophet in a descriptive sense (although that phrasing is arguably problematic in Wikipedia), but from a historical perspective he was much more than a prophet. I think the status quo, before all the recent changes, was a pretty good summary of the most notable things that he was. His role as a theocrat is very important, and I think that is a neutral term. As to the term prophet, that's an important part of the religious interpretation of Smith, and a critical part of the "impact" section. COGDEN 09:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Prophet in the lede

Routerone has made changes that remove the other definitions of Smith, replacing it with "Who's[sic] adherents regard him as a Prophet." I modified the lede to include mention of 'prophet' but to include the other "hats" that Smith wore. Please comment on the versions ("original", "routerone", "tedder") here rather than continuing to revert. I have no preferred version; my version is intended as a compromise to encourage discussion and discourage editwarring. tedder (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Read post above please I mentioned it there Routerone (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I support Tedder's version. It's appropriate to mention that in the first paragraph of the lede since it's the defining claim of Smith's life and the basis for his following. alanyst 19:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Tedder's version is fine, but I think the original is better. (No one's mentioned Routerone's stealth attempt to remove the sentence about Joseph Smith's practice of folk religion, which is a more significant deletion.)--John Foxe (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to get the ball rolling rather than endorse a specific version. There are objections on both sides, but you are both (Routerone, Foxe) at or past the line of edit warring. Let the "wrong" version stand, discuss it here, don't make personal attacks. tedder (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe, your accusing Routerone of "stealth" removals is uncalled for and inflammatory.--Canadiandy talk 01:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to Tedder's lede, though the old one was fine too. COGDEN 09:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Note this has been removed. I'm good either way, does it need further discussion? tedder (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Routerone re-added the phrase. Smith being regarded as a prophet is already treated in the final paragraph of the lead.--John Foxe (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Theocrat= POV

Claims of Joseph Smith being a Theocrat is an extreme POV statement to have made and a largely unfounded one made on false premises, often requiring a selective and ghastly spin of information for one to reach such a conclusion.

If I am not mistaken, Joseph Smith was very fond of Democracy and the U.S Constitution and if you argue he is a fraud then the pro-Democratic teachings within the Book of Mormon would be his if it were "false" of course. Labelling him a "Theocrat" is dishonest. I won't allow it to stay in the article. Routerone (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Routerone, I agree it is an extreme POV. I also agree it is a likely attempt at spin. Joseph Smith wrote (Wentworth Letter) "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates..." Strange words for a Theocrat. But I will suggest you rephrase your statement, "I won't allow it to stay in the article." That lowers you to the level of those who may think they have ownership, and I would hope you are above that. Personally, I will put forth appropriate effort to see it does not stay in the article. --Canadiandy talk 01:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to understand the complaint better, because I can interpret it two possible ways. One is that Routerone might be arguing that Joseph Smith was not at all a theocrat, in the sense of "a person who advocates a system of government based on religion". The other is that he might be arguing that Joseph Smith was not exclusively a theocrat, but that in addition to his promotion of theocracy he also promoted democracy and specifically the U.S. Constitution; thus to label him a theocrat would be a distortion or oversimplification of more complex views. Routerone, does one of these interpretations fit your argument better? alanyst 03:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me Joseph Smith was the quintessential American. He viewed the best form of government as one founded on a constitution and democratic principles, but ideally a nation which was "One nation under God". Unless one would call the American government system a theocracy, Joseph Smith isn't one either. Naturally he viewed the organization of the Church as a theocracy, but what religions out there don't? If there is anything to be said about his political ideology it is that he was a strong proponent of the US Constitution. In fact I've reworded the article to reflect this point. Is there any research to the contrary? Could someone add a link to the Constitution?--Canadiandy talk 03:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Canadiandy. I appreciate your input. I'm still interested in Routerone's take since he put forth the initial objections. But since you've responded, I'll ask you a follow-up question: are your characterizations of Joseph Smith's political views based on any particular sources, especially ones that would be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards? (This is not meant as a leading or skeptically posed question, but an effort to help you frame your arguments in ways that will resonate with the Wikipedia community.)

The approach you're taking, making factual statements founded on personal belief and asking for research to the contrary, is not the right way to go about it. Otherwise, someone could make an absurd statement like "Joseph Smith was a world-renowned trapeze artist" and insist that it be accepted since no research existed to prove the contrary. Without source-based justification of your statements, I'm afraid your changes cannot be accepted. I am therefore reverting. alanyst 04:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

To quote Bushman from the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life (May 14, 2007) titled "Mormonism and Politics: Are They Compatible?" (linked from http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Mormonism-and-Politics-Are-They-Compatible.aspx)

"Smith was forced into politics by the abuse that the Mormons received. As soon as they were driven out of their first city site in Independence, Mo., he turned to the government for redress. He never obtained it. No level of government, from local justices of the peace to governors to the president of the United States – to whom he constantly appealed – ever came to the defense of the Saints. But Joseph Smith became a great devotee of constitutional rights because they seemed like his only hope. He said some very extravagant things about the Constitution being God-given because of those rights and became quite conversant in constitutional matters."

Also, Joseph Smith recorded the following professed revelation, "I [God] established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose" (Doctrine and Covenants 101:80)

Thanks for your helpful input, and for being fair-minded. Can my edit be restored? Thanks.--Canadiandy talk 04:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about that source. I think it's a great summary of Joseph Smith's political views from a recognized scholar, and on that basis I think it merits careful consideration. Its weakness is that it's not a peer-reviewed publication, but rather a report of a moderated interview that Bushman gave to the Pew Forum. That doesn't mean that his statements are unreliable or unscholarly, but that there was no opportunity for other scholars to evaluate or respond to his claims. If he was summarizing his research from Rough Stone Rolling, then it would be better to use RSR as a source for your changes instead since that work did undergo a reliable review process.

If we assume for the moment that the source is reliable enough for use in the article, then the question is how it should fit into the article. Was Joseph Smith known as an advocate for the Constitution, to a similar or greater degree than he was known as an advocate of theocracy? Bushman himself states later in the interview, "Joseph Smith's word for his own political philosophy was 'theo-democracy': God and the people." This seems to be a nuanced view, not landing squarely in a theocratic nor secular-democratic camp.

That nuance leads me to think that mentioning his political philosophy in the lede at all is too susceptible to oversimplification. On that basis, I propose that "theocrat" and Canadiandy's wording both be omitted, and left for the article body to address.

I'll act on my proposal without prejudice to alternate approaches, and invite further comment by all. alanyst 04:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fair. I'll look around for more sourcing. Again, thanks for being fair.--Canadiandy talk 05:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if "theocrat" is being taken in the a different sense. I saw rumblings that "politician" was seen as anti-Smith too. Smith certainly had political aspirations and wanted to make a religious utopia, yes? I mean, that idea is a theocracy. I'm wondering if there is connotation being attached to the word, not the idea. And I'm seeking clarification, not divisiveness. I'm hoping Canadiandy1 and Routerone (and others) can tell me where my assumption is incorrect. tedder (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If we could use Smith's own term for his political theory, it would be theodemocracy, which was a theocratic monarchy presiding over a subordinate democratic legislature, the king having the final word on all matters. But that word is a neologism, and therefore it is inappropriate for the lede. The word theocracy, however, is equally correct, and is the best word available to describe Smith's political ideology. The term is the most frequently-used term in the literature to describe Smith's government and governmental theory, both by Mormon and non-Mormon writers. Moreover, Smith used the term himself, at least once, in a positive sense to describe an ideal holy utopian monarchy. We can call Smith a politician, but leaving out the crucial fact that he was also a theocratic ruler is an serious omission. Besides, COGDEN 10:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with COGDEN. Although I don't consider omission of "theocrat" a crucial loss to the lead, it seems logical by the same measure to eliminate the word "politician," which suggests running against opponents, stump speaking, kissing babies, and the like—not commanding obedience, threatening dissidents, and ordering the destruction of a newspaper.--John Foxe (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

John, it would be less disruptive to a collegial atmosphere if you could refrain from taking every opportunity to aim jabs at Joseph Smith, which simply invites further combativeness from his sympathizers. It's akin to a hypothetical person regularly inserting rhetoric lambasting the pope into their comments at Talk:Catholic Church. It's become more frequent here in the past few months and is crossing the line drawn by WP:SOAP.

Your politician argument is a strawman since you're using distorted depictions of what politicians do, and of what Smith did, to exaggerate the distinction. I think "politician" is pretty uncontroversial: he was the mayor of Nauvoo, he exercised political influence, he ran for president of the United States. It's a much broader term than "theocrat" and thus more applicable even if Joseph Smith doesn't fit a particular stereotype of politicians. alanyst 13:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Smith's status as a politician doesn't fit the stereotype. He was a self-appointed mayor, he exercised political influence by commanding block votes of followers who believed him a prophet, and he ran a quixotic campaign for president that largely demonstrated his growing megalomania. Furthermore, few American politicians have been able to order the destruction of an opposition newspaper.

I've always tried to be civil here. I'm irenic by temperament. But as the only non-Mormon (other than A Sniper, who's a descendant) that regularly contributes here, I have a responsibility to represent the vast majority of informed readers of English who've rejected the claims of Joseph Smith. There will be precious few bouquets thrown my way, but that comes with territory.--John Foxe (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like plitician because, except for being Mayor of a city which he didn't really campaign for, he was only a political candidate for President, and that for a very short time due to his being killed.--Canadiandy talk 14:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I support Canadiandy's position and urge the removal of the word "politician."--John Foxe (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I have removed it since there seems to be a weak consensus for doing so. alanyst 21:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Analyst.--Canadiandy talk 05:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Commanding obedience? Are you talking about Joseph Smith or someone else. I thought Smith was the fellow who said I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves? He was also the fellow who said one of the first principles of heaven is the free-agency of each human being. You see, Foxe, it is when you distort history and twist reality that many of us refuse to "throw bouquets", rather we tend to reject most of what you say because we know you have a private agenda rather than any desire to "tell the truth" about Joseph Smith. As an aside, BY was far more likely to command obedience than Smith. Smith was anything but an autocrat. If you chose to follow him great, if not, that was fine too. As far as he was concerned it was your own choice and no one else's. That is reality and that is the truth about this individual regardless of your personal opinion. -^StormRider 15:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Stormrider, I'm far more shocked at Foxe's accusing Joseph Smith of a "growing megalomania." I wanted to be sure that word was as biased a term as I thought it was at first. It means; "A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence." I then looked up 'irenic.' Which means "Aiming or aimed at peace." Unless John Foxe has mixed up his definitions (Joseph Smith would actually be the most deserving of the term 'irenic') it seems that accusing the religious leader of a large faith group of being pathologically delusional is as far from irenic as one can get. It reminds me of the line from the movie "The Princess Bride" where Inigo Montoya says, "You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means." Sorry John Foxe, if your aim is building peace, you are way off your game right now. --Canadiandy talk 17:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

At least you've learned two new words.--John Foxe (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"Folk Religion" in lede confusing.

If the term folk religion means, "...consist[ing] of ethnic or regional religious customs under the umbrella of an organized religion", then it seems there should be a little more information given. What was the organized religion? Was this 'Christian folk religion?' Was it a combination of regional beliefs of specific sects (i.e. Methodist and Presbyterian)? For now I will add the qualifier that he practiced a "Christian folk religion." I still don't like it, but it's an improvement until we can correct it fully.--Canadiandy talk 03:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the intent of this term was to allude to Smith's use of peep stones for finding treasure. Critics of Smith feel this was a major event in Smith younger days; others see it as having little to do with his actual functioning of his religious life. However, the rub comes in that there were eyewitnesses to Smith using these stones during the translation process. Smith said very little of his translation process other than he found the Urim & Thummim with the plates and the translated them by the gift and power of God. Given the accounts of using the stones it has been assumed that no other process of translation was used. If he did use the U&T why revert to the stones? No one has really proferred a guess that I have read. I have read LDS writers who say it is unthinkable that he would, but they also have not answered some of the accounts regarding the stones. -^StormRider 09:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadiandy, to understand what folk religion means in this context, you need to take a look at Quinns's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (1998). There was nothing particularly "Christian" about the magical practices in which the Smith family participated, and clergymen of all denominations took regular swipes at its practice.--John Foxe (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Then which religious movement was this a folk religion of? Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism? It seems to me that clergyman of all denominations took swipes at Joesph Smith too, that doesn't mean he wasn't Christian. --Canadiandy talk 14:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Smiths' folk religion was a kind of paganism. John L. Brooke, The Refiner's Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)—not a scintillating read, by the way—traces the folk religion of the Smith family's time and place to the "hermetic thought" of "Greco-Roman Egypt, where ancient metallurgical traditions were fused with Platonism, Gnosticism, and Egyptian theology. Passing from Islamic sources at the turn of the twelfth century, fragments of the hermetic philosophy emerged in medieval Europe in the form of alchemy."(8) I think that's a stretch, but Brooke's an authority, so his opinion is, for Wikipedia purposes, absolute truth unless it can countered by another authority. And nothing written by LDS apologists or published by the LDS Church is, for Wikipedia purposes, authoritative.--John Foxe (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it sounds like there might be confusion between the so-called folk religion the Smith family practiced and the traditions some in his community used to explain their gold divining. The way it reads seems to suggest that Joseph Smith went to some localized church sect where he worshiped Ra the Sun God. I don't buy in to the allusion that Joseph and his family sat up all night praying to the polytheistic Gods of the Greco-Roman and Egyptian peoples. The way the "authorities" seem to be pointing is that local gold-diggers embraced a variety of religious traditions. It is a big leap to assume that Joseph or his family embraced most (if any) of these systems. Still, present biased wording seems to continue on the tradition of painting Joseph Smith as some money-grubbing, cultist. In the same approach, since the most common writings of our culture are found in the Harry Potter and Twilight genres, and since we all write here from time to time, then we are by association, Satanists. Even the "experts" only theorize that Joseph Smith may have bought into these complex belief systems. So we are left with information which is speculative at best, unclear as to any influence, and unrelated to the actual writings, work, or teachings of Joseph Smith. At best this stuff is only worth a footnote, so I am confused as to how anyone could argue including this information prominently in the opening paragraphs is neutral.

Also, John Foxe, I never questioned Brooke's role as an academic authority. So I'm not sure why you needed to write that his "opinion is, for Wikipedia purposes, absolute truth...". And thanks for reminding me that "nothing written by LDS apologists or published by the LDS Church is, for Wikipedia purposes, authoritative." I don't remember of course quoting an LDS source on this one, but I won't complain about you taking another chance to point out the inherent weaknesses of Wikipedia sourcing and how it is discriminatory towards Mormon researchers and authorities. Personally I will assume good faith and look forward to the day that this religious insensitivity can be corrected, but for now I will concede your right to continue your crusade for a brave new world where the academics define our faiths.--Canadiandy talk 04:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Folk religion is not the best word, but it was a compromise long ago. The best word is magic, which is the word most commonly used in the literature. It's not really fair to try to associate Smith's type of magic with its historical religious roots, such as paganism, Hermeticism, Sumerianism, or Judaism. By the time Smith practiced it, magical practices and beliefs like astrology, seership, dowsing, and the use of talismans were as Christian as they were anything else. Smith was a Christian, and he incorporated the magic, from whatever source, into his religious worldview. In that sense, his magic is no less Christian than such originally pagan and Jewish magical practices as exorcism, faith healing, glossolalia, use of holy water, etc.--other than the fact that pagan magical practices like exorcism have been incorporated by Christians for much longer than things like crystal gazing. COGDEN 11:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's try the phrase "folk magic" and see if there are objections.--John Foxe (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What proof exists that Joseph Smith practiced these beliefs? It is not enough just to say that his family searched for gold, and that many gold-searchers around practiced "folk" magic, therefore Joseph Smith practiced folk magic. Even if authorities speculate such it is deceptive to state such as truth. As to the word magic, at best it should be identified as 'folk superstition' (unless one is trying to malign Joseph Smith) because as far as I know, magic is not real.--Canadiandy talk 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

All authorities agree that the Smiths practiced folk magic. For purposes of Wikipedia, what you or I say as editors may be speculation; what authorities say is absolutely true. It makes no difference whether an editor's intent is to praise of malign Joseph Smith. What counts is what authoritative sources say. In this case, they all say that the Smith family practiced folk magic.--John Foxe (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

But what authorities speculate is still speculation. To phrase it any differently is deceptive. So which researcher 'knows' that Joseph Smith believed that Pagan chants to the God Mercury would help him find Gold? Their evidence?--Canadiandy talk 00:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "truth" on Wikipedia; in fact, our purpose as editors is the acknowledgment that all we do is report what reliable references exist for a given topic. The truth of what they say absent from everything we do; there is no judgment of their statements, opinions, or speculations. It is preferred to note when an expert is speculating. Historians who think they are capable of seeing into the mind of a historical figure and reporting that to the world is a modern activity that some historians have chosen to delve into. As soon as they do so, they stop being historians and take on the role of a psychiatrist and none of them are qualified for such a role. Those types of comments should be used sparingly and when they are used, they should be noted as this is this author's speculation or guess. Cheers, -^StormRider 13:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Authoritative sources are "true" for Wikipedia purposes unless it can be shown that they're in conflict with other authoritative sources. Academic sources, such as Brooke (which I myself often find a stretch) can speculate to their hearts content as well as practice psychiatry on the dead. So long as their material is peer-reviewed, published by a scholarly press, etc., their speculation is gospel unless another authoritative source can be brought into evidence in opposition. --John Foxe (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Location of "prophet"

I'd like to discuss the location of the "prophet" phrase. It's already in the last paragraph of the lead, why does it have to be in the first sentence?--John Foxe (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Because he more well known as being considered a prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement than almost any other item in the first paragraph, especially city planner and military leader. It makes more sense to have it in the first paragraph than the last. 72Dino (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't bother me so long as it doesn't appear twice.--John Foxe (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. 72Dino (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, but the change of tense in the same sentence is a bit odd. "Smith was...who is regarded..." ...comments? ~BFizz 07:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Magical practitioners

I disagree with the attempt to add an unnuanced statement about Smith's religion. What's notable about the Smith family is that they were practitioners of folk magic. Attempts to make them sound conventionally religious come later, after Joseph's death.--John Foxe (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who deleted the initial "having practiced folk magic in his youth" sentence. I explained in the delete that JS's magical practices are well discussed in the section immediately following, so putting it in the first paragraph is giving it undue weight in a section that is supposed to be more general.

My delete was reverted without explanation; consequently, I revert it back. Discussion is welcome.Kant66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC).

Smith was still treasure hunting through magical means when he is said to have found the golden plates. This information is essential to understanding the context in which the events occurred. (You can sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end.)--John Foxe (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

On a slightly side note regarding edit summaries, indicating "see talk page" in the edit summary, with the explanation on this page as it is above, should be not be reverted with the edit summary "removal content without explanation" (see this diff). There is an explanation and readers are directed to it. If you want to revert him for another reason then that's different. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Kant66, don't worry so much about the 4 tilde thing (and a tilde is the squiggle on top of the key to the left of the '1' key on your standard keyboard). I can't speak for everyone else but to me it's trivial. What is far more of a wiki-etiquette problem is the lack of discussion before reverting that some have shown. Also, if you continue to try to improve upon correcting the bias problem in this article, you will be quickly bombarded with "blue script." That is a blue link designed to correct your approach according to the almighty Wiki rules. From my experience, those who quote them most are the ones who are trying most to push an agenda. Kind of the statistics parallel to the fact that people who quote statistics are usually trying to manipulate you. It's really condescending and should only be taken seriously when received by contributors who show kindness (i.e. who don't revert without discussion). The key here, don't be bullied out like a great many in the past. It's been so bad in the past there was even a newspaper article about it (see top of this page or . "Wiki Wars: In battle to define beliefs, Mormons and foes wage battle on Wikipedia" http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700105517/).--Canadiandy talk 01:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

JohnFoxe. It is interesting that you keep trying to push the term 'magic.' According to FAIRMORMON; "In 1990, Cambridge University published Stanley Tambiah's Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality, which showed that the definitions of many of the most important writers on "magic" were heavily influenced both by their backgrounds and their personal ideological agendas: they defined "magic" as religious beliefs other than their own. In 1992, the International Interdisciplinary Conference on Magic in the Ancient World failed to come to any agreement on what "magic" was. The plenary speaker, Jonathan Z. Smith, in particular voiced strong opinions: "I see little merit in continuing the use of the substantive term "magic" in second-order, theoretical, academic discourse. We have better and more precise scholarly taxa for each of the phenomena commonly denoted by "magic" which, among other benefits, create more useful categories for comparison. For any culture I am familiar with, we can trade places between the corpus of materials conventionally labeled "magical" and corpora designated by other generic terms (e.g., healing, divining, execrative) with no cognitive loss. Indeed, there would be a gain." The use of the term "magic" imposes, especially for modern Christians, a negative label at the outset, which explains its popularity for critics. As Professor of Egyptology Robert K. Ritner explained: "Modern Western terms for 'magic' function primarily as designations for that which we as a society do not accept, and which has overtones of the supernatural or the demonic (but not of the divine)." --Canadiandy talk 01:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

FAIR is LDS apologetics, not an authoritative source for Wikipedia purposes.--John Foxe (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

@John Foxe: I was simply summarizing the part in the "Early years" section that mentioned Joseph's religious upbringing (the family was "caught up in [the religious] excitement"; Joseph "participated in church classes and read the Bible"). It's right next to the part about folk magic and treasure seeking. An honest summary of the article ought to mention both the Protestant and folk magic influences if it's going to address Joseph Smith's formative years beyond "raised in a period of religious enthusiasm," since both influences were significantly mentioned in the reliable sources. Omitting one but dwelling on the other is distorting the story to advance a POV. alanyst 02:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

While the folk magic part needs to be included, putting it in the third sentence of the article frames everything else around it which, for a figure as historically important as Joseph Smith, is a distortion. You mentioned one theory that the folk magic was connected to the Book of Mormon, that should go in the Book of Mormon section.

If it is placed at the beginning for the purpose of familial context, then it would be fair to add something like "the folk magic of the day" since Quinn, as well as others, has pointed out that it was a prevelant practice at the time. Leaving it just at "folk magic" is misleading and makes them sound like Wiccans when the synthesizing of folk magic with Christian beliefs was fairly common in New England in the early 19th century.I thought I had signed it with the four tildes, but thanks for the reminder:) Kant66 (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Foxe began this section by saying that "What's notable about the Smith family is that they were practitioners of folk magic." I was under the impression that sources said this was common, rather than notable. Are there any sources that indicate that the Smiths' practicing of folk magic was above and beyond the norm of their day? ...comments? ~BFizz 07:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A fact about Joseph Smith that shouldn't be hidden from the reader's view is that Smith was treasure seeking through occult methods at the time he claimed to have received the golden plates from an angel. If you view the article from a non-Mormon viewpoint—which I by default seem to represent here—I think you can understand why that congruence needs to be mentioned early in any biography of Joseph Smith.--John Foxe (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair representation at all. Claims of "magic" and "treasure hunting" are claims that are largely overspun, exaggerated and given a narrow opinion on by critics. You're trying to pass off unsubtle spin as "fact" when in reality it has little legacy or even meaning to the life of Joseph Smith. Claims of "magic" ought not to be mentioned in the lead paragraph at all. I refuse to accept your twisted view of Joseph Smith being presented as mainstream within this page, clearly, you know no honest interpretations of Smith's life. You've even completely minsinterpreted your source texts off the mark and used disproven and unreliable critical texts to make a pit out of this very page. Routerone (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

On what reliable source do you rely? Please explain your assertions.--John Foxe (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

JohnFoxe. You don't like FAIR so I'll make this simpler for you. In 1990, Cambridge University published Stanley Tambiah's Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality, which showed that the definitions of many of the most important writers on "magic" were heavily influenced both by their backgrounds and their personal ideological agendas: they defined "magic" as religious beliefs other than their own." In 1992, the International Interdisciplinary Conference on Magic in the Ancient World failed to come to any agreement on what "magic" was. The plenary speaker, Jonathan Z. Smith, in particular voiced strong opinions: "I see little merit in continuing the use of the substantive term "magic" in second-order, theoretical, academic discourse. We have better and more precise scholarly taxa for each of the phenomena commonly denoted by "magic" which, among other benefits, create more useful categories for comparison. For any culture I am familiar with, we can trade places between the corpus of materials conventionally labeled "magical" and corpora designated by other generic terms (e.g., healing, divining, execrative) with no cognitive loss. Indeed, there would be a gain." Professor of Egyptology Robert K. Ritner states: "Modern Western terms for 'magic' function primarily as designations for that which we as a society do not accept, and which has overtones of the supernatural or the demonic (but not of the divine)." Sorry for forgetting that experts are only reliable when they are being quoted by Non-Mormon sources.--Canadiandy talk 23:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how these quotations are apposite to Joseph Smith. If you want to substitute "occult practices" for "folk magic," that's fine with me. What would you like to call dripping sheep's blood and peering into stones to find Indian treasure?--John Foxe (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, the source (Quinn) you are using for these "magical" claims in the article Foxe has actually been well and truly rubbished. [1]. It ought to be pointed out that there are no primary sources at all supporting the claims you are citing from Quinn, which makes your arguments watery and somewhat unfounded upon why you are keen to prop up such disputed "facts".

the fact that Quinn could not discover a single primary source written by Latter-day Saints that makes any positive statement about magic is hardly dissuasive to a historian of Quinn's inventive capacity- William Hamblin. Routerone (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice link Routerone. I love the point that, "Quinn's tendency toward neologisms has been called "Quinn speak," a term which could even more appropriately be applied to his remarkable insistence on redefining key terms and misrepresenting his primary sources. I think that term 'Quinn speak' would reflect a lot of what has gone on in the forming of this article.--Canadiandy talk 00:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Quinn is, for Wikipedia purposes, an authority on Mormonism, peer-reviewed and published by academic presses. William Hamblin is a Mormon apologist published by FARMS and well-known for his "ad hominem attacks on those who criticize his work or the LDS church."--John Foxe (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe seems to be pulling out the "peer-reviewed" justification again. I believe this is "Quinn speak" for "I like him because he doesn't like Joseph Smith and so even if his arguments are suspect and hard to support I'll stick with him".--Canadiandy talk 00:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, reliable sources count; ad hominems are usually less effective.--John Foxe (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion keeps on lapsing into establishing whether certain people are valid or not. Yes, D. Michael Quinn is a valid Mormon historian, and the magic involvement in the early part of Joseph Smith's life deserves discussion. However, John Foxe is attempting to put this up front and center, which, I'm sorry, is not merited in the case of somebody like Joseph Smith when there is so much to be said. His magic involvement was an issue in his early life, and deserves mention in that section, which it already has. Kant66 (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Quinn is a problematic reference because he can often be on the fringe. For example, he is the only individual to allude to homosexual tendencies in many of the leading members of the church during the time of Joseph Smith. Why? Because there were occasions when two men would sleep in the same bed....of course, with so few beds men and boys often slept together when traveling. Only Quinn makes this deduction on such flimsy circumstances. In this situation, he is considered fringe as he is in other areas. If a historian stands alone then he is fringe on a specific point. We need to seek the mainstream rather than fringe. -^StormRider 06:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with StormRider in terms of Quinn often being on the fringe, the folk magic involvement is also discussed by Bushman, for whom it is difficult for me to think of an opinion on which he can be considered on "the fringe." So yes, specific conclusions might be fringey and have no place on Wikipedia, the general theme of the folk magic should be discussed; however, it is certainly not important enough (when considering his whole life) to merit a place in the lead when basic facts like his parents' religious affiliations haven't made it into there. Kant66 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Religious and political leader

I propose that we add "and political" to the lead so that it reads: "Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious and political leader, and the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement." He indeed exercised political authority and influence, and if we can say that he was a city planner, military leader, and polygamist in the lead, then this can surely be mentioned. He was better known as a political leader than any of these things (except perhaps polygamist). Note that I did not say "politician" but "political leader." I feel that there is a difference between the two. "Politician" is more of a modern term, and does not necessarily imply leadership. Smith was a leader in both a religious and political sense. I also feel that it would be significant since many of his political ideas were new and quite liberal, even for his time. His political ideas and influence were a significant part of who he was and what he did.

Also, could we add "author" to the lead? I'm not talking about him being the author of the Book of Mormon, since there are obviously very differing views on that, but he wrote a lot of material, including huge portions of the History of the Church, and other writings. Furthermore, I propose that we change "Smith's followers regard many of his writings as scripture" to "many of his writings and alleged translations" or something of the sort.

I also propose that we add, in the last paragraph, something like: "Due to the drastically opposite views of Smith's claims, actions, and character, he is often regarded as one of the most controversial figures in American history." If you disagree with that statement, I would have to ask why. It's very, very true and very, very obvious. Live Light (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not feel that "political leader" needs to be in the first sentence. It is secondary to the reason he is best known. And the proposed addition in the last paragraph seems like original research without a citation that he is one of the most controversial figures in American history. There are plenty of people that have never even heard of him. 72Dino (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I second 72Dino on this for the reasons he gave. Kant66 (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

LiveLight, Joseph Smith is controversial to his critics and respected and inspiring to others both inside and outside of the Church. Michael Jackson is controversial. Joseph Smith is at best "irenic" at worst polarizing. You will likely find that most of any controversy which does exist was self-servingly initiated and fueled by Joseph Smith's religious opponents.--Canadiandy talk 23:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith and the occult

I tried to restore/rework the following two sentences of the lead, and they were reverted without explanation:

"Smith was reared in western New York during a period of religious enthusiasm by a family that both professed Christian beliefs and practiced folk magic. Smith himself claimed the ability to find buried treasure through supernatural means."

The material is endorsed by all reliable sources. It also reflects negatively on the credibility of Joseph Smith. On what grounds can it be excluded from the lead?--John Foxe (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I already discussed this several times. His magic involvement is amply treated in the second section, to throw that into the third sentence of the article is giving undue weight to this particular element in a section that is supposed to be a summary. I fail to see how the fact that "it reflects negatively on the credibility of Joseph Smith" has any bearing on whether it merits more a place in the introduction. It's like me putting "Bob Jones University didn't allow interracial dating until 2000," in the third sentence of the BJ article. Yes, that's cited by a reliable source, and it deserves a place in the Wikipedia article, but putting it in the very front would make it out to be an attack piece, and not a Wikipedia article. (BTW, there is a "criticism of Joseph Smith Jr." Wikipedia page if you really just need to vent.)Kant66 (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec):It can be excluded on the basis of not being one of the article's "most important aspects" as stated in the lead section guideline. However, that is a matter of opinion. Your opinion, as I understand it, is that it is important and should be included. My opinion is that the information is not nearly as important as other facets of his life and should be left out of the lead section but continue to be included in the early years section. So where does that leave us with the Wikipedia guideline? 72Dino (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I can easily forget the question about whether it is in the lede (which it shouldn't be if the article is balanced) the big question is why John Foxe had to use the word 'occult' in the heading for this discussion. Time and again Foxe has shown himself to be nothing short of tactless, disrespectful, and inflammatory. Are you doing this on purpose, Foxe? At best it's thoughtless and deserves a retraction. Are you okay with this COgden?--Canadiandy talk 05:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Foxe isn't helping his cause by claiming that his wording reflects negatively on Smith. But I disagree with the premise that simply because Smith dabbled in magical arts, he must therefore lack credibility. Why so? In any event, I think that Smith's early magical career definitely merits inclusion in the lede. So much has been written on the subject, and this activity dominates what we know about his early life. The subject is also significantly tied, either directly or by indirectly, to the finding of the Book of Mormon, as it was Smith's magical seer stone by which he (by one account) found and (by all accounts) translated them. COGDEN 06:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic, ad hominem
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
COgden. So magic is tied to Joseph Smith finding the Book of Mormon? The seer stones were magical? Have you read anything about the origins of the seer stones? Would you suggest Moses parted the Red Sea by magic? That Christ used magic to raise the dead? That is as far from Mormon thought as you could get. Are you still active? The Church stopped teaching that... oh right, they never taught that.--Canadiandy talk 15:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Canadiandy1, stop the personal attacks/ad hominem arguments. They are unacceptable on an article talk page. Focus on the content, not the contributors. tedder (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry if my post read as an attack. I was not attacking COgden personally, only the confusing discrepancy of his doctrinal position. COgden plainly states he is LDS, however his position seems far from what the Church teaches doctrinally. So I believe COgden can be fairly asked whether his status as LDS is that of one active in the faith. There is no judgement on him intended based on his activity, but it does help clarify his POV or balance on some issues. For those unfamiliar with LDS terminology the term 'active' is similar to the term 'practicing' though subtly different. It allows for the fact that a Mormon might still practice major principles of the religion while not necessarily attending meetings or progressing in meetings and activities. --Canadiandy talk 00:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith did a lot of things in addition to the BoM. He claimed to have received the restored priesthood authority, he claimed to have received revelations, claimed to have received new Abrahamic scripture, claimed to have seen God, organized a new religion whose adherants number in the millions, .... Any one of these could have aspects of them included in the lead. To throw in his early folk magic uses because of its connection to the BoM is preferencing one aspect of his life over the others, when the lead is supposed to be general. Doing it to provide early-life description would require that the folk magic practices be placed in their proper context (i.e. they were common, and he was acting in accordance with his milieu) in order to not give the false impression that he was some kind of 21st century pagan, and none of the one-off snips that I've seen thrown in about the folk magic do that.Kant66 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Pedantic note: it would be 19th century, not 21st. alanyst 16:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the opinion of a non-Mormon, Smith's use of supernatural means to attempt to discover gold treasure during the period when he's supposed to have used supernatural means to uncover the BoM gold plates is of critical importance to the lead, something every reader of his biography has a right to be told right from the get-go. (The practice wasn't all that common. I can't think of another influential American of the period who was doing it.)

If we were to write an article on say, a religious charity whose chairman had concurrently been conducting a pyramid scheme, we'd want the reader to know that information right up front. Why not Smith's treasure hunting at the moment he comes up with the golden plates? Why exclude such crucial information from the reader, especially since it reflects so negatively on the credibility of Joseph Smith?--John Foxe (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

@Canadiandy: Yes, Moses parting the Red Sea was magic, as was his turning his rod into a serpent and his summoning of plagues upon Egypt. Indeed, the Bible basically says that these latter acts were magic in the same category as that practiced by Pharaoh's magicians. Though there is some overlap between magic and religion, and different views as to the difference between the terms, most scholars recognize that magic focuses more on the special powers, holiness, and/or exactness of ritual of the priest. In magic, the priest can invoke supernatural powers by his own authority or holiness, or has some special ability that the laity does not possess to invoke such powers. In non-magical religion, by contrast, the priest has no special powers in himself; though he may ask his deity for a supernatural demonstration, such demonstration has nothing to do with the powers or abilities of the priest, or the exactness of ritual.

@Kant66: It is appropriate for the lead in a bio article to say where the subject came from, what he did, and why he is important. The mention of magic is part of where he came from. Had Smith not been a background in magic, there would be no magical translation of the Book of Mormon or anything that followed. Therefore, I think that deserves mention in the lede. This would be like failing to mention in the Malcolm X article lede that he spent his early years in prison, or failing to mention in his lede that John McCain was a POW. COGDEN 00:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

COgden. As you wrote, "In non-magical religion, by contrast, the priest has no special powers in himself; though he may ask his deity for a supernatural demonstration, such demonstration has nothing to do with the powers or abilities of the priest, or the exactness of ritual." Is this not an exact description of how Joseph Smith acted. Is there any Priesthood ordinance or miracle he performed that was not through his priesthood (authority received from God)? Is there a single Priesthood act he performed that he would have said in essence, "Oh that wasn't God, that was all me"? If not then the one thing he never did was use magic in his leadership as prophet. This is a fundamental LDS doctrine.

As to Moses parting the Red Sea by magic, I think you're out in the fringes on that one. I understand for Wiki purposes we don't identify it as Moses doing it through the power of God, but it is equally unfair to attribute it to magic or the "occult". I suspect even John Foxe would agree on that one.--Canadiandy talk 00:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"Had Smith not been a background in magic there would be no magicla translation of the Book of Mormon or anything that followed." This is speculative, especially the "anything that followed," it's essentially reducing the sum of Mormon theology (deification, sealings, restored priesthood authority, etc.) to his association with folk magic. If you want to write an online essay arguing that, fine, but it's not the place for a Wikipedia lead. JS's magic involvement was mainly a factor in his early life, so it should go there, beyond that the folk magic and religion relationship is highly speculative. If it is included in the family section to provide context, it should be placed there in order to contextually situate it well (there was an earlier version John Knoxe reverted that I liked, I don't have time right now to look it up but it said "Joseph Smith was raised in a family that espoused Christian beliefs and folk magic practices common during that era.")

Once again, John, I fail to see how "it reflects negatively on the credibility of Joseph Smith" adds or detracts from its relevance to the Wikipedia lead. Also, I'm sorry, but folk magic was quite common (also see Rough Stone Rolling, page 50). The fact that you personally can't think of any who practiced it hardly qualifies as a Wikipedia source. Kant66 (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't think the information reflects negatively on Joseph Smith's credibility, that there's nothing for Mormons to hide, then there's no harm in satisfying my request that the information be added to the lead. As for the prevalence of folk magic in 1820s New York, we'd first have to define the meaning of "common."--John Foxe (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not read Bushman or Quinn so I will not attempt to comment on their writings, but there are some important misinterpretations of Kant66's writings. First, Kant66 doesn't argue that treasure hunting doesn't reflect negatively on the credibility of Joseph Smith. He argues that you adding that it reflects negatively on Joseph Smith as a basis for adding it to the lead paragraph.

Furthermore, John Foxe is employing a very severe form of the logical fallacy appeal to authority: Quinn is authoritative, therefore, my interpretation of which of Quinn's writings is most important is correct. Kant66 is not arguing that Quinn is so unreliable that he shouldn't be included in the article. He is arguing that the treasure hunting in the lead paragraph is unbalanced. If you want to make an effective argument that it should be included in the lead paragraph, quote one of your reliable sources that says that it is a central aspect of Joseph's life. Quinn might also have reliably written that Joseph liked to take long walks in the forest and throw rocks in the stream, but quoting Quinn saying that is not ample reason to include it in the lead paragraph. Zashitnik (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead paragraph should include the most important elements of Smith's story. There are many measures of importance, but one of the best gauges, for purposes of Wikipedia, is the amount of material that has been written on a particular aspect of Smith's life by preeminent writers. In this regard, there is nothing about his pre-1829 life that has received more written attention than his career as a magician. It is important for many reasons, not the least of which is its connection with the Book of Mormon, which was translated by the same magic stone and by the same method that he had used in other magical contexts. To say that Smith translated or produced the Book of Mormon, without even noting the influence of magic in his early life, is a severe omission. Also, the prominence with which the subject is discussed in the article merits inclusion in the lead. COGDEN 07:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

COGDEN, I'm not arguing for no mention of Joseph Smth's early magic dabbling, I'm just saying that, taking his life as a whole, it doesn't deserve a place in the lead when basic elements such as his parents' religious affiliations didn't make it into there. The amount of material written on JS's early magic practices (by actual academics with real PhDs, I'm not counting polemical pamphlets) is not a substantively significant percentage when compared to everything that was written about everything in his life. There was one serious scholarly monograph devoted to the subject. It was important in his early life, put it there, anything else is prioritizing a historical fetish.

John Foxe, once again, how much "harm can come from adding it," to the LDS church is competely and utterly irrelevant to whether it should be included in the Wikipedia lead. It preferences material that, when taken as a whole. The point is not to have a pro, con argument for or against JS, but to have a biography. As a Mormon there isn't harm to correctly noting that he was involved in early folk magic practices, as long as its framed in its proper context, but as a Wikipedia editor (a distinction you would be wise to note), there is no justification for including his folk magic in the lead when it is amply treated in the section immediately below and when, taking his life as a whole, it represents a small portion of the material written about him. Kant66 (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

More ad hominem
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
COgden. You keep bringing up the magic point again but still have not answered whether you are an active LDS member. I know hundreds, if not thousands, of LDS people, and not one of them hold your position on Joseph Smith using 'magic'. At least if you cannot answer that question could you explain for me what the term "Liberal LDS member" is. It is foreign to me and many others. And could you explain whether there are any other LDS members you know who describe Joseph Smiths works as the product of magic? This discrepancy deserves a response. --Canadiandy talk 13:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Canadiandy: Your questions about COgden's activity in the LDS church or his personal beliefs are wholly inappropriate. They are intrusive and irrelevant; they make no difference as to the merits of COdgen's arguments. You have not questioned me, or Routerone, or B Fizz, or any other editor here on our beliefs or membership status, nor has anyone asked you about yours. You obviously don't like COgden's take on what the sources say but that's no reason to call into question his religious devotion. He doesn't have to have the same views as the hundreds or thousands of LDS people you know in order to be a "true" Latter-day Saint. And whether he is or isn't devout, it's none of our business. Please don't ask these sorts of questions again. alanyst 14:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Sorry, Analyst. As COgden often waves the LDS flag, I think it only fair to ask which LDS flag. Like asking a Jewish person if they are Orthodox. My question is again not intended to find out about his level of devotion to the faith, merely his doctrinal context if he is professing himself LDS. For outside editors to come in it would be helpful to know that COgden, while identified LDS, does not reflect any LDS position I have seen before. So to avoid confusion I believe it important because non-LDS contributors could be easily misled into thinking that COgden's positions reflect an LDS-sensitive position. From my perspective they do not. --Canadiandy talk 14:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC) He doesn't often wave the LDS flag, in my experience. But it wouldn't matter if he did. Nobody needs to be alerted to the fact that someone sees things from a different perspective. I can't think of a reason to do so unless you want new editors to dismiss COgden's arguments out of hand instead of considering them on their merits, because of who is making the arguments. That's the quintessential ad hominem fallacy. For the sake of the rest of this talk page, I'm hatting this line of questioning as off-topic. alanyst 15:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I repeat that I haven’t read Bushman or Quinn, but I have read Sergei Antonenko, author of “Mormons in Russia: A Century-Long Path” a reliable source, and cited in the Mormon Church’s Russian page on Wikipedia. I admit, it is not exclusively a biography of Joseph Smith, but he spends much of his time on Church doctrines and non-Russian Church history, including a reasonably thorough treatment of Joseph Smith’s personal history, but makes no mention of treasure hunting. Sergei Antonenko is not a Mormon, and I remember how his book includes speculation of a “heavenly harem,” not the wording that most Mormons would prefer to use to describe polygamous relationships in the afterlife.

Kant66’s appeal to page 50 of Bushman’s biography, in which it is argued that treasure-hunting was a common practice of the time, has yet to be effectively appealed against, and even the fact that it is page 50 suggests that there are 49 other pages full of events and people in Joseph’s early life that are just as significant. Furthermore, this is a book that is 584 pages long.

So far, we have one and a half (half because Antonenko’s book isn’t an exclusive biography) that indicate that the treasure hunting is not significant enough to merit inclusion in the introductory paragraph.

On the other side, we have Quinn’s book(s), which mentions the treasure hunting, but which has not been quoted specifically stating that the treasure-hunting is important to an introduction of Smith as a historical figure. We also don't know what fraction of its pages are devoted to the topic (probably not very much). We also have a claim that many other books focus on this as a central part of this period of life, without quoting or even naming them specifically.

I second Kant66's assertion that the portion of literature devoted to this aspect of this part of Joseph Smith's life is very small when compared to the immense amount of literature written about him.

Even aside from the literature, though, given that one of the things that Joseph Smith is most notable for is the production of the text of the Book of Mormon, I feel that it would be much better to mention that he had little formal education in the introduction. In light of everything else he did, that is a significant fact about his early life. It adds context to his person without making the introduction sound odd.

Also, not all periods of life are equal. Anyone, whether or not they were involved in treasure-hunting in their youth, can make up a story about finding buried treasure. But Joseph Smith is not (in)famous because of a career of successful treasure hunting that began in his childhood, but because of the founding of a Church, whose organization and growing influence don’t result from treasure-hunting, and because of producing numerous books of purported scripture, despite being poor and uneducated, and not as a result of his treasure hunting. Prophet or fraud, or even genius or madman, those are his achievements, none of which were enhanced by treasure-hunting expertise. Zashitnik (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Profess vs. practice

I made this change to the lede before self-reverting so as not to further the edit war. I feel that my change is justified by the reliable sources and article text as I mentioned in the edit summary: reading the Bible and attending church meetings are Christian practices that the family espoused, not merely professions of belief. I think John Foxe's wording attempts to water down the Christian aspects of Joseph Smith's background and emphasize the folk magic aspects, but I think that distorts the narrative that the reliable sources provide. Does anyone (besides John Foxe, whose preference is already known) object to my phrasing, or prefer Foxe's verbiage? alanyst 17:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to the phrasing by Alanyst. 72Dino (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with alanyst's wording is that although some of the Smith family may have professed Christian beliefs, they were engaged in practicing folk magic. What one does exists on a different level than what one says.--John Foxe (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No objection.--Canadiandy talk 00:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The references indicate they practiced both Christianity and folk magic, so Alanyst's wording is appropriate. 72Dino (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What references indicate the Smiths practiced Christianity? Certainly none were church members during Joseph's youth.--John Foxe (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Note 10 in the article. 72Dino (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Does one have to attend a Church to practice Christianity John Foxe? Can one only love their neighbor from the pews?--Canadiandy talk 00:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a silly, pednatic discussion, so I'm hesitant to even get involved, but yes, John, you can be Christian and practice folk magic; it happens all the time. Some of our atheist brothers and sisters might even go so far as to say that they are one and the same:)

Good way to word it. Part of me feels that some variation of "folk magic that was common at the time," would be better, and part of me feels that the folk religion link does an adequate job of explaining how common it was, for any readers that might have their curiosity piqued as to what "folk magic" is. Briefly mentioning folk magic seems like it should be adequate to satisfy critics of Joseph Smith, but at the same time, it doesn't distort the article into an article focused on attacking Joseph Smith.

It maintains encyclopedic credibility, unlike Candiandy's attempt to call him a prophet in the voice of Wikipedia or Foxe's attempts to ensure that every reader has the impression from the very beginning that Joseph Smith was nothing more than a superstitious conman. I do not mean that as a personal attack, but I think that a few contributors should remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a church publication nor an anti-mormon book. Also, Wikipedia is not a battleground WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. I have full confidence in the administrators settling issues fairly, if, after ample discussion, anybody still insists on making it a battleground. At any rate, I feel like analyst has shown himself to be fair and intelligent in his contributions, and I find no objections to what he has written. Zashitnik (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to say that Joseph Smith was a conman. We need only say that his family hunted for gold through supernatural means before we say that Joseph Smith found golden plates through supernatural means. The reliable sources all agree about that. To not say it hides an embarrassing fact in the interest of a promoting a religion.--John Foxe (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course there's no need to say that Joseph Smith was a conman because that would be somebody's personal viewpoint. You also seem to indicate that there is a connection between hunting for gold through supernatural means and Smith finding golden plates through supernatural means. The two are not necessarily connected, kind of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. A reliable source would not be able to definitively state there is a connection because it would be impossible to prove. If you are not suggesting a connection, then I misinterpreted your postings. Lastly, the fact is not embarrassing, it is just a fact. I do not see an attempt to hide it, but rather to put the information in the proper location in the article to assure proper balance. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The proper balance is not to hide potentially embarrassing information to promote a religious belief. There's no necessary connection between Smith's treasure hunting and his finding of the golden plates. But you need to be honest with the reader and give him the information he needs to decide the likelihood of such a connection.--John Foxe (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not putting something in the introduction isn't "hiding" it. There is ample treatment of that subject in the first section of the article. Before editing this article, I edited the article for Islam Karimov, the President of Uzbekistan. I have learned a great deal about him recently, including his countless human rights abuses and murders, which are well described in the english section. Since I speak fluent Russian, I decided to translate the human right's abuses section into Russian so that locals can have some reliable source on him besides the state-controlled media. But I didn't even touch the introductory paragraphs, even though my purpose was to expose him before his people (how unbiased of me). I even shortened the Russian version of the human rights abuses so that it could fit better into the smaller sized Russian article. I am very passionate against his cruelty, but I do not own his article, and you do not own Joseph Smith's article.Zashitnik (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Zashitnik, you have no idea how nice it is to have you here. I haven't seen you contribute before, but if your first few points are any indicator you may just be the person we are looking for to save this article. You seem at first blush to be a person of sensitivity to the topic who has no agenda and can see things from the balance point. I accept your rebuke of me is likely aimed at my position as one who respects Joseph Smith as a man and religious leader and so I can be seen as having a non-neutral POV. Fair. I do wish it known that my effort here was not to manipulate the article to be a pro-Mormon piece, but to bring it in line with the balance afforded most other religious figures. I actually have worked at the 'Luther' page in an effort to correct an anti-Luther bias which would paint him as ravingly anti-Jewish. My goal was to bring this article into balance.

So I want you to know that I welcome your support here for two reasons. First because it will help bring a hopeful balance to the 'force.' And second, because it gives me a hope I can step back for a while and let you guide this article from the center (rather than the pendulum shifting of the past. As long as John Foxe continues his anti-Mormon (I know John Foxe you don't hate Mormon people, just their faith) crusade. I'll be watching with gratitude and interest if you are willing to step in and help sort this mess out.

Finally, I want you to know that my position on referring to Joseph Smith as a 'P'rophet was only based on the fact that that is a Priesthood title (similar to 'Pope' in the Catholic faith). I don't point this out to argue, I fully accept your criticisms of my input here as from a position of POV and at times a little too passionate or heated. But I felt with the control of Foxe and COgden that I couldn't leave the article to them either.

I do not know your religious background, but may I tell you that one of the most Christian acting contributors here so far has been you. You strike me as truly "irenic", melioristic, balanced, fair-minded, and well-grounded.

Please say you'll stay, and please know you have my best wishes and respect. I will be watching and cheering neutrality from the sidelines.

Excelsior!--Canadiandy talk 04:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're cheering from the sidelines, this must be an away game.--John Foxe (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Zashitnik, I'm pleased you provided balancing information about Islam Karimov (I'm of Eastern European extraction myself), but I don't understand how not changing the lead has any particular merit or what it has to do with article ownership. If Karimov is a notorious abuser of human rights, why shouldn't the lead say so? If Joseph Smith was treasure digging before he found the golden plates, the reader should be told from the beginning of the article. We don't deliberately hide information that's important for a reader's understanding simply because it reflects negatively on the subject's character and credibility.--John Foxe (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Poor form, Foxe. It looked like Zashitnik might finally bring a balance to the edit warring and and polarizing back and forth on this page, and you try and run him out. He is;

 1. Not LDS or anti-LDS
 2. Willing to address problems on both sides of the issue.
 3. Well versed in Wiki ways.
 4. Appears to have a melioristic approach.

And so faced with the opportunity to welcome the perfect contributor you go on the offensive? The only reason I can think you would have a problem with that is it means giving up your control of the article. I will be happy when the article is balanced, but it seems you will not rest until it has become a character assassination of a revered religious leader. It is becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith, Foxe.--Canadiandy talk 01:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize to Analyst for leading his thread off on a tangent, but I am glad that it accomplished its purpose in gathering consensus to make the edit before I hijacked it with my Islam Karimov comment.

The main idea of my comparison wasn’t to imply that introductions are untouchable or that Karimov doesn’t deserve to have human rights abuses in his Russian intro, but that we should try to be aware of our tendencies to go on Wiki-crusades and be content with contributing to, not owning an article. Looking back, that might not have been the most effective way to make my point.

As for the praises of my impartiality, I will say that there’s hardly any middle ground between thinking Joseph a prophet and thinking him a fraud, but I’m flattered that Canadiandy cannot tell my opinion of him, and I personally am very much impressed that I cannot tell what Analyst’s personal opinion of him is. If Analyst ever considered becoming an administrator, I would definitely support him in that.

Anyway, the question of who thinks what about Joseph, although it has often floated around the talk page, isn’t the most important question. In my opinion, the three most important qualities for any editor to have are:

1. Wikilove

2. A good working knowledge of and respect for Wikipedia procedures and encyclopedic integrity.

3. Reliable sources to support your claims

There are people on both sides of this discussion that have all three qualities, to varying degrees, and no one person is going to “save” this page, no matter how unquestionable his integrity. That’s not how Wikipedia works. This may be cynical of me, but the thing that stopped the Wikibattle was the intervention of administrators, not the arrival of an enlightened editor.

I personally am glad that COgden is contributing. His presence has done wonders for debunking Foxe’s aspirations to think himself the lone crusader against a host of Mormon editors who are desperately trying to hide the Church’s dark origins. I disagree with COgden on some points, otherwise I wouldn’t be discussing these things on the talk page, but discussing things with him is so much less emotionally exhausting, and I look forward to working with him.Zashitnik (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I too appreciate COgden's contributions, but I'm still (if we speak loosely) the only non-Mormon here. Here's what COgden said above about the question at issue (after disagreeing with me and my approach):

I think that Smith's early magical career definitely merits inclusion in the lede. So much has been written on the subject, and this activity dominates what we know about his early life. The subject is also significantly tied, either directly or by indirectly, to the finding of the Book of Mormon, as it was Smith's magical seer stone by which he (by one account) found and (by all accounts) translated them.

If you don't agree with COgden, please explain the reason for your disagreement.

Let me restate my own position, which is somewhat different from his. The mention of Smith's earlier magical career is agreed upon by all reliable sources and has been part of the lead for many months. The subject is an embarrassing one for Mormons because it suggests that the finding of the golden plates was related to Joseph Smith's occult activities and magic world view. I do believe Mormons here are "desperately trying to hide the Church’s dark origins." In the past when certain wording has been indifferent to me but important to Mormons, I've been glad to defer to Mormons. In this case, you seem to be unwilling to include substantive material in the lead that reflects negatively on the credibility of Joseph Smith.--John Foxe (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)